The Immigration and Asylum Bill: what's changing and why we're concerned
The Government's new Immigration and Asylum Bill proposes major changes to the way asylum and immigration appeals are decided.
The Government says the reforms will help reduce delays in the asylum system. But we are concerned that some of the proposals could weaken important safeguards, make the appeals process less independent, and increase the risk of wrong decisions being made.
For people seeking safety in the UK, including torture survivors, the consequence of an incorrect decision is that a person could be removed to face serious harm, including torture, or death.
Why do appeals matter?
An appeal allows someone to challenge an initial asylum decision made by the Home Office if they believe it is wrong.
Appeals are a vital safeguard in the asylum system. They provide an independent review when an initial decision may have been made incorrectly and help ensure that people who need safety are not wrongly refused protection and sent back to torture or persecution.
The Government has argued that appeals contribute to delays in the system. But many experts point instead to two long-standing problems: poor-quality initial decision-making by the Home Office, and a severe shortage of immigration and asylum legal aid.
What is the Government proposing?
One of the most significant changes in the Bill is the creation of a new appeals body called the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority (IIAA).
Currently, asylum and immigration appeals are heard by the First-tier Tribunal, which sits within the independent courts and tribunals system. Under the Bill, many of these appeals would instead be decided by the new body.
The Government says the new authority will be independent. However, we are concerned that the Home Secretary would have considerable influence over how it operates, including powers relating to appointment of key roles in the body and its procedures and timetables.
Independent judicial oversight of asylum decision making is key to an effective immigration system - it is what makes the system safe and legitimate. The asylum appeals body must be wholly independent of the government department the Home Office - that is responsible for deciding the asylum claims that are then the subject of the appeals that it considers.
Our concerns about the Bill
An asylum appeals system that is not independent of the Home Office
Independent oversight of appeals is essential to a fair asylum system.
The current appeals system is overseen by judges appointed by an independent commission. Under the new proposals, the Home Secretary would have greater influence over the people and processes involved in deciding appeals.
When decisions could determine whether someone is returned to persecution, torture or other serious harm, independent oversight of those decisions is a vital safeguard.
Decision-makers may have less legal experience
Current immigration judges are legally qualified professionals with significant legal experience. Under the new proposals, some appeal decision-makers would not be required to have the same level of legal qualifications or experience.
We are concerned that reducing legal expertise could increase the risk of wrongful appeal decisions in cases where people's safety is at stake.
Faster does not always mean fairer
The Bill includes measures designed to speed up appeals and encourage people to provide all information and evidence within strict deadlines.
But survivors of torture often need time, specialist support and expert medical evidence to explain what happened to them.
Trauma can affect memory, trust and disclosure. It can take time for someone to feel able to share experiences of torture or persecution, particularly with lawyers, healthcare professionals or decision-makers.
Rigid timescales risk making it harder for survivors to gather evidence and present their case fully. That could increase the chances of important information not being considered before a decision is made.
Will these changes solve the problems in the asylum system?
The Government says these reforms will help create a faster system.
However, the Bill does not address what many experts identify as the main causes of delays: poor-quality initial decisions and limited access to legal aid funded legal advice and representation.
Many appeals arise because the initial decision by the Home Office was wrong. Improving the quality of initial decision-making would reduce the number of cases that need to go to appeal and help create a fairer, more effective system.
What should happen instead?
We believe any reform of the asylum system should:
- Protect independent oversight of asylum decisions.
- Ensure appeal decisions are made by appropriately qualified and experienced decision-makers.
- Guarantee effective access to legal advice and representation.
- Ensure trauma-informed processes, sufficient time and flexibility, and an environment of safety and support so that survivors of torture and other vulnerable people can disclose important sensitive information and obtain expert evidence if needed.
- Improve the quality of Home Office interviewing and decision-making to reduce unnecessary appeals and delays.
What happens next?
The Bill is not law yet. It must pass through several stages in Parliament, including further debate, scrutiny and votes.
We are working with parliamentarians to amend and improve the Bill, will continue to follow developments closely and will speak out against proposals that risk making the asylum system less fair, less independent and less effective for people seeking safety.
We'll continue to follow the Bill's progress through Parliament and share opportunities to take action.