Asylum Bill is 'objectionable'

The Bill would make it easier to remove failed asylum seekers

MPs and peers have voiced "serious concerns" over the government's flagship Asylum and Immigration Bill.

Last October the government saw off a rebellion against the Bill, which streamlines asylum appeal procedures.

But Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights calls parts of the Bill "inherently objectionable".

"Our gravest concern... relate to the apparent restriction it would impose on the remedies available under the Human Rights Act," the report says.

Plans for a single Immigration Tribunal could violate asylum seekers' right to appeal, the report argues.

Protecting rights

"We are deeply concerned about any provision in a Bill which seeks to make an important provision of the Human Rights Act 1998 subject to other legislation."

The committee argues that proposals to limit High Court reviews of immigration appeals are "inherently objectionable as an attack on an important element of the scheme for protecting convention rights".

IN THE NEW ASYLUM BILL A "white list" of countries from which claims will be rejected New powers to prosecute over forged entry-papers A single-tier appeals process with limited court access Q&A: Asylum system overhaul

The report also reiterates concerns about Home Office proposals for a list of 26 "safe" countries.

Asylum seekers from countries on the "white list" face having their cases rejected automatically.

But the committee warns: "The presumption that a particular country is always safe for everyone is of questionable validity."

The concerns were raised as part of the Joint Committee on Human Rights' regular Scrutiny of Bills progress report.

Rights protection

A Home Office spokeswoman said the government believed the measures were in line with the Human Rights Act.

"Under our proposals, asylum seekers would continue to have access to appeal but not continuous, multi-layered appeals which can be used to frustrate removal."

She said the safe third countries' plans were extending the principle already used by the courts.

"Those with claims that are properly considered by third countries generally considered safe can be removed without a right to appeal in the UK," she added.