Tag: Suella Braverman

Court Decisions Impacting Protests and Gender Rights in the UK


Significant number of things happened this month

May 2025

There were a number of interesting events on the human rights front in the UK this month including the Court of Appeal judgement discussed below. There has been a steady ‘nibbling away’ of rights by successive governments which is why we have started this series of reports of which this is the second and why the judgement is good news.

Right to Protest 

This month the Court of Appeal has upheld an earlier ruling of the High Court from May 2024 that then Home Secretary Suella Braverman did not have the power to create a new law that lowered the threshold of when the police can impose conditions on protests from anything that caused ‘serious disruption’ to anything that was deemed as causing ‘more than minor’ disruption. They said that “the term “serious” inherently connotes a high threshold … (and) cannot reasonably encompass anything that is merely ‘more than minor’”.

This was the first time a government had sought to make changes through so-called ‘Henry VIII powers’ of secondary legislation to a law which had been democratically rejected by Parliament when introduced in primary legislation.

Hundreds of protesters have been arrested under these measures since they were created, including the

climate activist Greta Thunberg (pictured: MusikExpress) who was acquitted of all charges in a hearing in February 2024.

Liberty has called for the regulations to be quashed immediately (as per the initial ruling from the High Court, whose decision to scrap them was put on hold until the conclusion of the appeal) and has called for all arrests and prosecutions under the legislation to now be urgently reviewed, alongside a comprehensive review into all protest laws that have been passed in recent years.

The Court will decide in the coming weeks if the legislation is to be quashed.

Gender Recognition Ruling

Five judges from the UK Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the legal definition of a woman in the Equality Act 2010 dealt with biological sex at birth and did not include transgender women who hold gender recognition certificates.

In a significant defeat for the Scottish government, their decision will mean that transgender women can no longer sit on public boards in places set aside for women and it will have far reaching implications for access to protected spaces and services such as the armed service, hospitals, women-only charities and changing rooms and access to sport.

Lord Hodge told the court the Equality Act (EA) was very clear that its provisions dealt with biological sex at birth, and not with a person’s acquired gender, regardless of whether they held a gender recognition certificate.  In a verbal summary of the decision, he said: “Interpreting sex as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of man and woman in the EA and thus the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way.”  He stressed that the ruling does not change the protection trans people are afforded under the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’ under the Equality Act.  Amnesty has called the decision ‘disappointing’.

Humanist Rights

Two couples are taking the government to court over its failure to legalise humanist marriage in Wales and England, five years after a ruling that the lack of recognition was discriminatory. Humanist marriages are legal in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and elsewhere in the world including New Zealand, Canada and Australia.  In Scotland in 2022 there were 9,140 humanist wedding ceremonies compared with 8,072 based on faiths or other beliefs.

Activists Detained

Non-violent activists Roger Hallam and Dr Patrick Hart are being refused their right to a Home Detention Curfew.  Days before their scheduled release from prison in March Dr Hart was told that there was ‘no suitable accommodation’ and Hallam that the media’s interest in his case meant that he was deemed unsuitable for HDC (which actually states that non-violent prisoners can only be denied release ‘in exceptional circumstances’). New release dates are respectively June and possibly August. There will be an appeal.

The Counter Terrorism and Border Security Act of 2019

This was invoked by police at St Pancras rail station for detaining a Palestinian-British Christian academic and his 8-year-old son on their return from Paris on Good Friday. Professor Makram Khoury-Machool (pictured: BBC Arabic Service) is a Palestinian-British Christian academic who has lived in the UK since 1999 and taught in Cambridge since 2004.  He is the founder of the Cambridge Centre for Palestine Studies whose board members and patrons include Dr Rowan Williams, Baroness Helena Kennedy, Baroness Sally Morgan, Lord Chris Smith, HE Clare Short, Baroness Warsi and Lord David Steel.  

He and his son were held over 4 hours until after midnight, were given no food while the police took his fingerprints, DNA samples, searched his personal belongings and confiscated his laptop and mobile phone using the threat of force.  Seven days later, the devices were returned but without his SIM card.  He was subjected to an intimate body search, and his son was left traumatised by the experience.  This is perhaps the first time a child as young as eight has been detained in the UK under the 2019 Act; his treatment may breach the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to which the UK is a signatory.

Economic, Social Cultural Rights

Amnesty reports that in the UK there is no legislatively defined universal social protection floor such as the one recommended by the UN’s International Labour Organisation: this is left to the discretion of the state and is inconsistent across Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  The changes proposed by the Pathways to Work Green Paper 2025 will require new legislation allowing the secretary of state to implement proposed cuts to social security rates for disability and incapacity schemes, and removing some of the legislative protections which are in place to protect against political whims.

If implemented, Amnesty considers the extensive reforms proposed would be a deliberately discriminatory, disproportionate and retrogressive violation of human rights;  The UK’s social security system does not legally guarantee essential social security payments that ensure access to basic needs such as healthcare, housing, food and education and that social security freezes, caps, and deductions, removal of the spare room subsidy (bedroom tax) and two-child limit have deepened poverty and disproportionately harmed children, the disabled and low-income families. Despite increased social security spending, poverty rates remain unacceptably high.

Recent posts:

0

Refugee report: November


Reports focus on destitution and the need for cooperation concerning asylum

November 2023

We are grateful to group member Andrew for his work in compiling this report on the current state of affairs with refugees and asylum seekers. A quiet month on the legislative front, but much noise from certain quarters. It was noted that the Home Secretary’s complaint against “tent-dwellers” included the aside “many of them from abroad”, with its implication of illegal immigrants joining in the supposed lifestyle choice. This was roundly condemned by a number of refugee charities, along with homelessness support groups. 

The Joseph Rowntree Trust have published a report on destitution in the UK. Among its findings was the fact that 28% of destitute households were migrants, and rates for that group were 35% higher than the national figure. Such households also tend to have more children. 

The Institute for Public Policy Research (a centrist think tank) has also published a report, “Charting New Waters”, on dealing with those crossing in small boats. Like the Safe Passage report mentioned last month it is concerned with developing safe routes, an organized Europe-wide system to share the responsibility, and a reform of the asylum processing system. The report does not give much detail, but reinforces the feeling that the government needs to engage with our neighbours in finding solutions to the issue. 

On that topic, the numbers of asylum seekers crossing the channel has been lower this month, mainly because of the weather 

We still await the High Court decision on the Rwanda plan, but the feeling is that the government is prepared to lose the case. This would, of course, put the European Court of Human Rights in the firing line, at least with the Home Secretary. The decision is expected in the first half of December. 

Many Afghans who were promised a safe passage to the UK after the Taliban takeover are still waiting; 3000 who have been promised asylum in the UK are in UK-funded hotels in Islamabad, but the Pakistan government is ejecting all Afghan refugees. There has been no government statement, as far as we know. 

The Home Office has rolled out a new “asylum decision-making prioritisation”. This is really a pushing ahead in trying to reduce the backlog of cases awaiting decision. The government has argued that the backlog has been reduced, but in fact the total has increased due to new cases, while the “legacy” cases from pre-2022 are indeed being reduced. 

Migration lawyers have noted with pleasure that the number of refusals of claims of trafficking by new arrivals has fallen, following a change in the regulations. 

The Home Office announced this week that the number of asylum seekers to be held on the barge Bibby Stockholm is to be reduced from 500 to 425, following a fire risk assessment. This would likely make the provision 10% more expensive than housing claimants in hotels. 

On the campaigning front, next year’s Refugee Week will be from 17th to 23rd June. The theme will be “Our Home.” 

AH

1

Human rights: progress report


Report on the current situation with human rights legislation in the UK

October 2023

It has been distressing to see the steady erosion of rights in the UK with limits on protests, campaigning and access to judicial review all incorporated in legislation. Police powers have also been increased. The war in the Middle East has seen the Home Secretary urge the police to take action against supporters of the Palestinian position.

A disappointing lack of resistance has been seen with the introduction of these new laws and other bills in parliament. There has been opposition in the House of Lords but this has been bypassed or simply ignored. The main resistance has come from outside organisations such as Each Other and Open Britain. The Labour Party has been disappointingly quiet.

At the recent Labour Party conference in Manchester there was a fringe event Human Rights for a better Britain. An Amnesty member, Elena Auer, attended this event and reported:

“I attended a Labour Party fringe event held jointly by Amnesty and The Labour Campaign for Human Rights. It was an interesting networking event with opening remarks robustly setting out our defense of human rights. The Labour party representative set out their belief that human rights should remain at the heart of Labour’s policy and practice. We were given a copy of Amnesty’s new ‘Human Rights Manifesto which was launched this week (W/c 9th October) [we have been unable to locate this online but an older version can be accessed here]. The good news was there was a ground-breaking speech from Emily Thornberry committing the a future Labour government to review all anti-rights legislation. I am hopeful that both Amnesty and Liberty would hold the Labour party to account on this if they do form the next government”.

Whether the party – should it form a government – will do more than ‘review’ the legislation remains to be seen. Review by itself commits the party to nothing and it will have to find parliamentary time to debate and drive through alternative legislation. In view of other pledges and changes it wants to make (if the conference speeches are to be believed) then this time may be limited. These more restrictive laws are likely to be a feature for some considerable time.

As previously reported, The Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, visited Washington DC recently and gave a speech in which she referred to the Human Rights Act as the Criminal’s Rights Act. Liberty has gained permission from the High Court to take criminal action against the government for introducing new anti-protest legislation which has been democratically rejected by parliament just a few months previously.

They say that the Home Secretary has acted unlawfully by using a statutory instrument to give the police more powers to impose restrictions on protests that cause ‘more than minor’ disruption. Statutory Instruments are a way to bring new laws in without having to create a whole new bill. Liberty argues the Home Secretary was not given the power by parliament to take this action, making her action a serious overreach which inviolate he constitutional principle of the separation of powers because the measures have already been rejected b parliament. By bringing in these new powers, the government has been accused of breaking the law by giving the police ‘almost unlimited’ powers to shut down protests due to the vagueness of the new language.

Status of Acts

Briefly, the current status of acts which negatively impact on human rights are:

Nationality and Borders Act 2022Royal assent: May 2022
Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022Royal Assent May 2022
Police, Crime, Sentencing Courts Act 2022Royal Assent July 2022
Public Order Act 2023Royal Assent May 2023
Anti-Strike (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023Royal Assent July 2023

We are grateful for group member Mike for the work in facilitating this post.

0

Refugee summary


The October update on the current state of refugees into the UK
October 2023

The week’s big event has been the start of the Supreme Court’s review of the legality of the Rwanda deportation plan. They are expected to take 3 days to come to a conclusion, but this will not be made known for some weeks. Also, the Mayor of Portland’s planning permission protest against the Bibby Stockholm ship was heard this week (she lost) and the Home Office have reported that claimants will be sent back to the barge from 19th October. In passing, the Home Office is refusing to state the cost of the barge, as it would not be “in the public interest”.

The government’s Illegal Migration Act is facing a court challenge from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) on the ground that it breaches the Windsor Framework. The framework is the revised post-Brexit deal for Northern Ireland, which was agreed by the UK and EU earlier this year. It deals mostly with trade issues but also includes a human rights element. It commits the UK not to water down the human rights provisions that flow from the Good Friday Agreement.

Opening up the UN Refugee Convention to reform would cause the world to “go backwards” on refugee rights, a UN leader has said. Gillian Triggs, UN Assistant Secretary-General, told the One Young World Summit in Belfast that there is a “global environment of populist rhetoric” that is damaging to refugees. The 1951 UN Refugee Convention outlines a number of protections for refugees, including basic minimum standards, and asserts they should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom.

Suella Braverman

In a trip to Washington DC last month, the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, said it should be questioned whether the application of the UN’s Refugee Convention is “fit for our modern age”.

Channel crossings

The mild Autumn has kept the small boats coming, the total people arriving for the year so far being just over 25,000. This is down by about 20% on last year, mostly because of the absence of arrivals from Albania. There have been two major reports this month: Safe Passage has been looking at safe routes for prospective refugees and the Refugee Council have looked at the data on arrivals, and discuss the impact of the new Illegal Migration Act. The Refugee Council’s analysis of new Home Office statistics shows that three in every four of the people who have crossed the channel so far this year would be recognised as refugees if the UK Government processed their asylum applications. This is higher than the Refugee’s Council previous analysis of those who made the journey in 2022, which found it was almost two-thirds. The statistics also show that:

More than half (54 per cent) of those who have made the perilous crossing come from just five countries – Afghanistan, Iran, Eritrea, Syria and Sudan.

With the exception of Albanians, the number of people crossing the channel is higher in 2023 compared to 2022.

Analysis based on the data shows that once the Illegal Migration Act 2023 comes into force:

 • Each year, over 27,000 refugees who cross the channel will be denied status in the UK.

 • As few as 3.5 per cent of those people arriving by small boat, 1,297 people, will be removed from the UK to their own country.

 • 35,409 people who arrive in the UK by small boat could be left in limbo each year, having had their asylum claim deemed permanently inadmissible but not having been removed.

• Even with a safe third country agreement in place with Rwanda which allows for up to 10,000 people to be removed there annually at least 25,409 people will be left in a state of permanent limbo each year.

(The Illegal Migration Act The Illegal Migration Act became law on 20 July. The main elements of the Act include the creation of a duty for the Home Secretary to arrange for the removal of anyone who arrives irregularly into the UK – including, but not limited to, those who arrive by small boat. Anyone who is covered by the duty to remove will also have any asylum application or relevant human rights claim deemed automatically inadmissible. )

The Safe Passage report concentrates on devising a better system of dealing with new arrivals. It recommends developing safe routes, not least to end the control of the smugglers, an organized Europe-wide system to share the responsibility, and a recommitment to the UN-based regulations under international law.

The Migration Advisory Committee has recommended that the shortage occupation list is abolished and that people in the asylum system with permission to work are allowed to work in any role. These are some of the recommendations in the full review of the shortage occupation list, published this week.

With thanks to group member Andrew for the work in producing this report.

AH

0

Salisbury group member appears in national paper


Salisbury group member Lesley appears in a montage on the front page of the Long Read in the Guardian, 5 October

October 2023

An article in the Long Read section of the Guardian newspaper entitled Inside the Rwanda deportation plan has a photo montage in which group member Lesley features holding two banners.

The article is by Daniel Trilling and is a detailed review of the muddle, confusion and dissembling behind the government’s desire to send unwanted migrants to Rwanda.

We received word that the first deportation flight in June was to take off from Boscombe Down, a secure airfield near Amesbury in Wiltshire. It had been moved from Stanstead at the last moment to ward off potential protests and because it is surrounded by barbed wire fencing. Two Salisbury group members were able to make it to the airfield where there was a large contingent of police officers and a bevy of cameras. The photo was taken by one of the photographers. As you know, while we waited for the take-off, a final appeal to Europe meant the flight was cancelled hence the fury about the European Court and threats to take us out of the jurisdiction of the Court to enable future deportations to take place.

1

Suella Braverman’s speech


Home Secretary, Suella Braverman’s speech to the Tory party conference in Manchester

October 2023

Suella Braverman made a speech on the fringe of the Conservative Party conference on 3 October in which she said the Human Rights Act should be renamed the ‘Criminal’s Rights Act’. The speech as a whole – covering areas such as immigration and the threat that Britain will ‘go properly woke’ under Labour – received a standing ovation by a packed auditorium. She said that Britain was ‘enmeshed in a dense of set of rules designed for another era’ and that these rules acted against the interests of the country. The speech was dubbed a ‘red meat address’ by the Daily Mail.

Hostility to the HRA has a long history in the Conservative Party and many of its members would like to see it abolished and for us to come out of the European Convention. Plans to reform the act seem to have been shelved for the moment but may well reappear in the manifesto for the next election.

Commentators have seen the speech, together with one given in Washington on 26 September, as part of her leadership campaign ahead of a possible Conservative defeat and an election for a new party leader. But an attack on the HRA and the reception given to her remarks on this and other topics are of concern. A standing ovation suggests an element of the party still wish to see the legislation abolished. In some ways it is hardly surprising such has been the remorseless denigration of the act and its supposed iniquities by the right wing press. The impression has been firmly planted that the act is a criminal’s charter and enables such people to escape justice. This despite our gaols being crammed full to bursting and news that foreign prisons may have to be rented to house yet more.

People’s rights need protection like never before. We have witnessed example after example of wrong convictions, unarmed people shot by the police, criminal activities by the police themselves and a steady trail of mistrials and overturned convictions that to argue that we need less protection by abolishing our rights is perverse. The positive effects of the act seldom gain a hearing. In the coverage of the Hillsborough disaster for example, that it was the Human Rights Act which enabled families to gain justice scarcely got a mention in reporting by the right wing press.

Miscarriages of justice, police errors and overturned convictions, all weaken the public’s faith in the justice system. It is therefore depressing to see the Home Secretary make these remarks and receive a standing ovation for them. She seems to ignore the fact that terrorists and criminals are only alleged terrorists and alleged criminals until due process has found them guilty (or not) a fact which, as a barrister, she well knows.

Sources: APnews, Times, Guardian, Daily Mail, Evening Standard

0

Rwanda: the morality question


How moral is the plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda?

July 2023

The wish by the government to deport asylum seekers and refugees to Rwanda has consumed considerable political capital and is a topic rarely out of the news. It is the flip side of the problem of people arriving by small boats across the Channel which causes so much fury in sections of the media. The extreme difficulty in applying for asylum from outside the UK is only occasionally mentioned. Legal routes have all but been closed off forcing those seeking asylum to engage in perilous journeys. According to ex prime minister Boris Johnson however, writing for the Daily Mail in his new job, said there are ‘numerous safe and legal routes for people to come to Britain’. His argument is that once word gets round the ‘camp fires’ of northern France that there is a chance of being sent to Rwanda, the business model of the smugglers will be broken (We must take radical action to get Rwanda done!) 30 June*.

This raises a moral question which is that the idea of deportation and treating them badly is to use people as a matter of policy. It is using deportation as a kind of punishment for a class of people no matter what the legitimacy of their claim might be. It is also logically unsound since it will be the refugees who will suffer and end up in Rwanda, not the people smugglers. The likelihood of the policy deterring the smugglers has been challenged recently in an impact assessment report which notes that the Home Office had little evidence to show that it might work. Academics say that it is issue of culture, kinship and language which are important factors and changing the rules has little effect.

Stopping the boats – assuming that to be possible – does not stop the problem. War, persecution, climate and poverty are among the factors which force people to leave their homes and embark on long, perilous journeys to seek asylum.

It has been pointed out that Rwanda is not the best of countries as far as human rights are concerned. There is little freedom of expression. Journalists are harassed and intimidated and opposition leaders find it hard to make headway. Bloggers and lawyers are intimidated and sometimes unlawfully detained. What has not been commented on however is that the deportation policy crucially depends on Rwanda being a safe place for us to send refugees and it will be extremely difficult for the UK government to stop the deportations if evidence of mistreatment by police or security forces in Rwanda subsequently emerges. It will also be difficult and embarrassing for the government to criticise President Kagame for any infringements of evidence of bad treatment. Having invested so much political capital in the policy, to admit the country is not in fact safe will be extremely awkward.

Refugees will find it hard to settle in the country as did those who went their as part of the – now abandoned – Israeli scheme. Perhaps the enthusiasm for the schemes owes something to several Australians who act in advisory roles in Downing Street. The Australians sent their asylum seekers to islands in the Pacific in a much criticised scheme.

Public attitudes toward refugees seems slowly to be changing and a recent IPSOS poll showed the UK to have one of the most positive attitudes towards immigrants at 56%. The numbers wanting our borders closed totally has declined. 54% wanted immigrants to stay. This despite the relentless rhetoric in the tabloid press.

Government attitudes seem to have hardened by contrast and ‘stopping the boats’ is one of the prime minister’s five pledges. In the i newspaper on Saturday (2 July) there was speculation that the government is considering leaving the European Court of Human Rights to enable it to overcome the courts’ objections to the deportations.

In all the commentary, the political jousting in the Commons and the seemingly relentless articles in the media, the moral argument seems seldom to emerge. The boat people are treated as though they are almost criminal and there is even an attempt to besmirch the RNLI for rescuing them in the Channel: RNLI a Migrant taxi service claims the Daily Mail (1 July*). Deportation is to be used as an instrument of deterrence.

Some indeed might be economic migrants and not ‘real’ asylum seekers. But a large proportion are desperate people fleeing desperate circumstances and need our help. We have a moral and legal obligation to hear their appeals. It is a great shame that the voices of intolerance have such salience in our media and in some members of the government.

*Articles accessed 3 July

0

Arrests prior to the coronation


Graham Smith, the leader of Republic, was arrested prior to the coronation and held for 16 hours

May 2023

UPDATE: 8 May: Police express ‘regret’ at the arrest of Graham Smith. No charges will be brought under the new Public Order Act against any of those arrested. The only charges brought are for drugs related offences. Questions remain concerning why the arrests were made in the first place and what, if any, pressure had been put on the police to make them.

We have been warning for some time in previous posts – along with other organisations – that the desire by the present government and Home Secretary Suella Braverman, to limit the ability of individuals and organisations to protest by passing a series of laws to limit such activity and to give the police yet more powers to carry them out. The new Public Order Act was rushed into law and signed by King Charles just days before his coronation took place.

Using the act (it seems), Graham Smith the leader of Republic, an organisation which believes we should be run as a democracy and not have an inherited royal family at the head of the country, was arrested before the coronation took place. It is unclear on what the grounds the arrest was made and he was released after 16 hours. He was not the only one to be arrested and others included volunteers from Night Stars which prompted Westminster Council to say it was ‘deeply concerned’ by their arrest.

The new legislation arose because of the activities of the climate protestors who used a variety of methods to disrupt the capital including gluing themselves to pavements. Their protests did seem to shine a light on the poor performance by the government to tackle the climate emergency. They were not popular however and the disruption caused to commuters and others led the government to pass a range of laws to limit the ability to protest. The Home Secretary famously said in parliament that such people were “Guardian-reading, tofu eating, dare I say the anti-growth coalition”.

There is a tension when it comes to protesting. There are many who are in support of peaceful protests but are angry about those which are disruptive in some way or even where there is some violence. The problem with peaceful protests is that they are almost always ignored. It is the more violent type which become news and where the cause is thereby recognised. There were many decades of peaceful protests for women to have the vote for example which yielded nothing. Once more violent methods were employed by the suffragettes, change eventually occurred although there were other factors at play.

The Salisbury Amnesty group neither supports nor condemns the campaign for the country to be a Republic. The issue at stake is the right to campaign on the matter. There is no specific right of protest. We do have the right to free speech and we do have a right of assembly under articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention. Giving the police yet more powers to arrest on the pretext that the person might be disruptive is a worrying development. Another worrying development is the alleged use of facial recognition during the coronation. This technology has been widely used by repressive regimes such as China where the ability of people to move almost anywhere is tracked by the police.

Sources: Evening Standard, CNN, The Times, Amnesty International, and yes, the Guardian

0

Salisbury Journal and refugees


Journal publishes forthright piece on the subject of refugees

March 2023

The Salisbury Journal is a local paper in the United Kingdom and is fond of publishing self-promoting puff pieces by our local MPs, so a forthright article by Martin Field in the March 16 2023 edition is worth highlighting. It concerned the controversy surrounding the suspension, and subsequent reinstatement, of Gary Lineker who presents the Saturday night BBC programme on football called Match of the Day. It arose following the publication of Illegal Migration Bill the previous week and Gary’s tweet comparing aspects of the bill to the actions of the National Socialists in ’30s Germany. The tweet caused a huge outrage against both Lineker and the BBC by a number of Conservative politicians together with sections of the right wing media.

Several commentators have wondered, like Field, whether the intensity of the furore was intended to be a distraction from the underlying issue. Field reminds us that the bill proposes that people who are fleeing persecution, who may have a legitimate claim for asylum and have family and relatives here, will never be able to have their claim heard and will be deported.

He says that they [refugees] are not being treated as individuals, as fellow human beings but classified generically, as members of a group, defined not by human characteristics, but by their manner of arrival in the UK.

“Make no mistake. This is a slippery slope. Removing people’s humanity through language is the first step; through law which criminalises them and takes away their rights the second; extremists emboldened the third; [then] inhumane and degrading treatment will follow. The lesson from history is unequivocal”.

In the same paper was a piece by Tom Bromley also referring to the Lineker affair and wider issues around allegations of impartiality by the BBC.

Refugees, and the boat people in particular, have raised great passions in the UK so it is interesting – and encouraging – to read of two commentators in the Journal expressing doubts about the bill and the subsequent events at the BBC.

The Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, declared the bill ‘[it] amounts to cruelty without purpose’ and to be ‘immoral and inept’.

To note that Salisbury MP John Glen and Devizes MP Danny Kruger both voted for the second reading of the bill on 13 March.

0

Refugee report, March


March 2023

The temperature surrounding immigration and asylum has risen this month with yet more legislation is proposed. We are grateful for group member Andrew for the preparation of this report.

Now we have the detail of the new legislation proposed by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary designed to deal with the small boats issue “once and for all”, and we can also review some of the latest figures on immigration to emerge.

As expected, the main thrust of the new Illegal (sic) Migration Bill is to state that migrants arriving by small boats will be detained and deported to their home country (though there appear to be no return agreements in place), or, if not safe, to a third country e.g. Rwanda, to be processed.  There will also be a cap on the numbers to be taken in by “safe and legal” routes.  Those removed after processing will not be allowed to re-enter, resettle, or seek British citizenship at any future date.

The issue of the legality of the proposed legislation is based around the UK’s being a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (and a member of the court thereof).  The Home Secretary believes that Article 19(1(b)) of the Human Rights Act allows a level of circumvention:

“The Home Secretary, the Rt Hon Suella Braverman KC MP, has made the following statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998: “I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill are compatible with Convention rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.”  A statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 does not mean that the provisions in the Bill are incompatible with the Convention rights.  The Government is satisfied that the provisions of the Bill are capable of being applied compatibly with those rights.”

Responses

Comments from organisations with an interest in the area have mostly been hostile.  For example, this is from Amnesty International UK’s refugee and migrant rights director, Steve Valdez-Symonds:

“Attempting to disqualify people’s asylum claims en masse regardless of the strength of their case is a shocking new low for the government.

“There is nothing fair, humane or even practical in this plan, and it’s frankly chilling to see ministers trying to remove human rights protections for group of people whom they’ve chosen to scapegoat for their own failures …

“Ministers need to focus on the real issue – which is the urgent need to fairly and efficiently decide asylum claims while urgently introducing accessible schemes, so people seeking asylum do not have to rely on people smugglers and dangerous journeys.

“Clearly we do not know how this will proceed, either through parliament or the courts, although previous attempts along similar lines have not got very far. It seems likely that the proposed act will not come into force for many months or even years.

“It is worth noting, though, that the government frequently refers to “abuses“ of the human rights law by lawyers representing asylum seekers, which may result in further legislation.  Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick has suggested that some such lawyers are being “monitored.””

It is also worth noting that in 2021, 12,838 Rwandans applied for asylum in other countries.

Arrivals

Arrivals by boat last year included more Albanians and Afghans and fewer Iranians than previously.

On Afghanistan, 22 people were settled in the UK under Pathway 2, and 38 by other means (Pathway 1 appears to be non-functioning).  Of those arriving by boats most have been granted leave to stay (Afghanistan, Syria, Eritrea and Sudan all have acceptance rates over 95%).

Backlog of asylum cases now 160,000

The backlog of asylum cases waiting for decisions has now reached 160,000, despite increased numbers of staff at the Home Office.  The total number of decisions made in 2022 was 19,000.

As a comparison with other European states, up to September 2022, the UK had received 80,000 applications for asylum status; Spain had received 130,000, France 180,000 and Germany 300,000.

Europe as a whole had its highest level of immigration since the crisis year of 2016.  Some states have responded by increasing the numbers of staff processing claims (Germany by 5 times) and by reducing the backlog (France by a third).  In the UK, not only is the backlog increasing but the productivity of staff is going down.

In the case of Shamima Begum, the Upper Tribunal has stated that she was a victim of trafficking, but that it is still legal to remove her British nationality.

It is interesting to note that only 6% of small boat arrivals are referred for trafficking checks.

It was noted this month that up to a third of the Overseas Aid budget has been reallocated to housing refugees.

Finally – somewhat under the radar – the Court of Appeal has upheld the ruling that asylum seekers can be prosecuted for arriving in the UK without valid entry clearance or assisting unlawful immigration.  This follows last years’ Nationality and Immigration Act and will clearly have major repercussions.

AH

Recent post on the subject by EachOther

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑