Would You like a feature Interview?
All Interviews are 100% FREE of Charge
The government is expected to use the little-known Article 19B statement as part of its new illegal immigration bill to help Britain circumvent parts of international law.
Details of a new law making it illegal for migrants to arrive across the Channel are due to be announced in Congress on Wednesday.
Rishi Sunak has made “stopping ships” one of his five key priorities as Prime Minister, while Home Secretary Suella Braverman has repeatedly taken a hard line against illegal immigration.
There are concerns that the new law could face significant legal challenges over claims that it violates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Under the new law announced in Commons on Wednesday, those trying to reach the UK via the Channel will be moved to a safe third country such as Rwanda “as soon as it is reasonably practicable”.
Arrivers will be barred from applying for asylum while in the UK, and the new law will also prevent them from returning to the UK once they have been removed.
The government has indicated that these provisions do not apply to unaccompanied minors or seriously ill persons.
This is a significant departure from current law which gives all asylum seekers the right to remain in the UK and be heard.
The government also announced a five-point plan to tackle illegal immigration in December. The plan includes interventions specifically targeted at people arriving from Albania, including manning border guards at the country’s airports.
Other measures announced included a new small boat operations command, more enforcement offices, and more asylum caseworkers to strengthen Strait policing.
Sunak also said the government would avoid using hotels to house asylum seekers whenever possible, instead using other locations such as disused holiday parks, surplus military installations and empty university halls. said to use.
Under the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into English law, ministers introducing legislation are required to make a statement confirming that the legislation does not violate human rights law.
This is known as the Section 19A statement or “statement of compatibility” and applies to most bills as they pass Congress.
However, the Act also provides for a section 19B statement, stating that the minister in charge of the bill “cannot make a statement of compatibility”, but “the government nevertheless does not allow the House to proceed with the bill.” I hope,” he said. .
They are also expected to state in their explanation of the law why they believe that the content of the law may violate some part of human rights law.
Congress can choose to ignore the fact that legislation recognizes violations of human rights law, and the use of this provision does not prevent it from passing Congress. , which eventually became law.
Home Secretary Suera Braverman has admitted that the government’s new law on small boat crossings will “push the boundaries of international law”. Telegraph.
Article 3 of the Human Rights Act protects asylum seekers and refugees from being returned to countries where they are at risk of torture, harm or death.
Much of the delay in many asylum applications stems from the fact that it is very difficult to prove that you are at risk of persecution in your country of origin and that verification takes time.
Nor are there any exceptions provided under Section 3. This means that individuals denied refugee status or deemed a national security risk will continue to be prohibited from being returned to their country of origin if they are deemed to be at risk of violence or torture. can do.
Refugees are also protected under the 1951 Refugee Convention, which is part of English law, which stipulates that they cannot normally be returned to countries where they fear persecution for certain reasons.
Once the bill is before parliament, the government is expected to identify areas in which it believes the bill may violate human rights law.
Governments are expected to use Section 19B provisions to clarify how the law violates their commitments under Article 3 of the Human Rights Act.
This may be related to the fact that persons arriving by small boat are ineligible under the law to apply for asylum in the UK, even though this is required by UK law. I have.
Critics of the plan predict the measure will do little to deter people from crossing the Channel, with traffickers telling asylum seekers this is their last chance to go to Britain. So some argue that it could cause a surge in arrivals.
Christina Marriott, executive director of strategy for the British Red Cross, said her organization was struggling to figure out how to make it “illegal” for people to cross the Channel in small boats.
“Under this bill, once [asylum seekers] Once they arrive in the UK they will be removed from asylum. We believe this puts a true catch-22 at the heart of our asylum system,” Ms Marriott told Sky News.
“If you are fleeing persecution or war…how can you apply for asylum in the UK?”
European Council Director for Refugees and Asylum Catherine Woolard said the new law “will not be a deterrent” because people still want to travel to the UK “because of where they are fleeing from”. I warned you.
“It’s unlikely to work. The UK has one of Europe’s toughest asylum policies, but people still want to come. It’s explained by how you’re running away from,” she said. sky news.
Labor leader Sir Care Sturmer called the plan “impossible” and suggested that it was announced to improve the chances of the Conservatives in May’s local elections.
He told LBC Radio on Monday: These bills always seem to happen when local elections are approaching.
“It was meant to break the gang, but it didn’t. Now we got the next law with nearly the same bill. I don’t think so.”
Critics of the scheme may file legal challenges if new legislation is announced, as they did to the Rwandan scheme announced last year.
After a series of legal challenges to the system, there have been no successful transfers of migrants to Rwanda. The High Court ruled that the plan did not violate the UN Refugee Convention, but the judge allowed part of that decision to be appealed.
One area of appeal is that the agreement made between the UK and the Rwandan government contained adequate protection against the risks of refoulement, including being forcibly removed from Rwanda to a dangerous location. whether or not
Measures of nationality and borders bill pushing boats crossing the Channel back into French waters after being set to be challenged in the High Court after judicial review by several charities including Freedom from Torture and Care4Calais was also withdrawn.
The law now in place included a provision giving the Home Secretary powers to prohibit channel immigrants from seeking resettlement. However, while this power was voluntary, the new law hopes to impose an automatic ban.
In late 2021, an appeals court ruling overturned the convictions of three asylum seekers imprisoned for piloting a small boat and aiding illegal immigrants. was not deemed to have violated the law. .
The ruling stated that “even if the asylum seeker does not have a valid passport or identity card, or does not have prior authorization to enter the UK, arriving at a port is not a breach of immigration law. it won’t.”
Similar lawsuits are likely to be filed against the new illegal immigration bill on the grounds that it violates international law.