If implemented, the Nationality and Borders Bill would create a widespread reform of the UK’s immigration and asylum system. Many of its provisions have attracted a wide degree of controversy, however, some of the most debated parts of the Bill to date are that:
The Nationality and Borders Bill will introduce new exemptions to the requirement that individuals need to receive notice of the decision to deprive them of their citizenship. In essence, this would mean that more individuals may have their citizenship removed at immediate notice.
Priority Removal Notices (PRNs) will be introduced which will set the period of time in which a person can challenge the Home Office’s decision to remove them from the UK. Any evidence provided after this deadline will be given ‘minimal weight’ if no ‘good’ reason for not complying with the deadline is provided. The introduction of these PRNs is reminiscent of the removal window scheme which had been previously suspended.
Detained fast-track is rebranded and renamed as the ‘accelerated detained appeals’. It is worth bearing in mind that detained fast-track was declared by the Court of Appeal as being unlawful.
An individual’s right to appeal is removed. This even concerns appeals made from outside of the UK and cases which are certified. In doing so, existing appeal rights are weakened despite the high-levels of wrong initial decisions.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, there is a growing concern for the proposed Bill. This concern is being voiced on a domestic and international stage by defenders of refugee protection, NGOs, and those who are trained practitioners.
The UNHCR, for instance, states that the Bill would penalise most refugees seeking asylum in the country, creating an asylum model that “undermines established international refugee protection rules and practices”.
When considering the above points in full, it is clear that the Refugee Council was right to characterise the Nationality and Borders Bill as the “anti-refugee” Bill. The Refugee Council has stated that if the Bill is passed then it will create “a discriminatory two-tiered approach to asylum” whereby those seeking asylum after having travelled through a third country will be treated differently in their claims and have restricted rights and entitlements when granted protection.
When we consider the implications of this proposed Bill in relation to the UK’s obligations as a continuing signatory to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights it seems somewhat contradictory. Essentially the Borders Bill would criminalise the people in which the UK made a commitment to protect, and in doing so, it breaches the commitments made in the Refugee Convention, thus it cannot be allowed to continue.