The Home Affairs Committee is inviting members of the public to take part in a survey to inform its inquiry into fraud.
The cross-party committee of MPs wants to find out more about the different types of fraud that people are experiencing in the UK. They also want to hear about the impact this has had and what support people have received.
Fraud is the most common form of crime in England and Wales, accounting for 40% of reported offences and costing UK households over £1 billion every year. It can take many forms including phishing scams, identity theft and romance fraud. Fraud increasing takes place using digital technologies and online platforms; and perpetrators can often be based outside the UK making detection and protection more difficult.
The quick-to-complete survey consists of multiple choice questions, with the option for people to provide more information if they would like to. Everyone is welcome to take part, but they should note that the Committee is unable to take action on individual cases.
Launching the survey, Dame Diana Johnson said: “Fraud is the most common form of crime in this country with over 3 million cases recorded every year, and probably millions more going unreported.
“But behind these figures are individual victims of all ages and backgrounds, many of whom will have suffered h long-lasting financial and emotional consequences.
“We have launched this survey to find out what types of fraud people experience in the UK. The information you give us will help us understand how well current fraud strategies are working.
“It will also help us to learn what gaps there may be in the support that victims of fraud receive, and to identify where improvements can be made.”
Where to get help
We understand that the issues raised in this work may be sensitive or upsetting. If you have been affected by any of the issues raised in this inquiry, you may wish to contact your GP, local MP or the following organisations:
Police Scotland – call 101
Reporting fraud and cyber crime | Action Fraud Call 0300 123 2040 Monday to Friday 8am – 8pm. Action Fraud will guide you through simple questions to identify what has happened and their advisors are available twenty four hours to give you help and advice if you need it.
Westminster’s Transport Committee has published its report on the future of self-driving vehicles (SDVs) and how the Government should approach their introduction to the UK’s roads.
The cross-party Committee makes a number of recommendations on how regulations should be updated to tackle concerns about safety and security, dilemmas over legal liability, as well as infrastructure that will be needed to accommodate their introduction.
Transport Committee Chair Iain Stewart MP said: “Thanks to the energy and creativity of the self-driving vehicles sector, the UK has a head start in developing a vision for how SDVs could be introduced. The Government’s strategy is one this Committee broadly welcomes.
“Self-driving vehicles are a great British success story in the making and we have a competitive advantage over many other countries. But all that hard work could be at risk if the Government doesn’t follow through and bring forward a Transport Bill in the next Parliamentary session, before the next general election.
“Widespread take-up of SDVs faces various hurdles, including public confidence in their safety, security and their potential to have knock-on impacts on other road users. If the Government is going to meet its ambitions for self-driving vehicle deployment these knotty issues need to be addressed.
“We believe the Government should take a cautious, gradual approach, with SDV technologies only initially introduced in well-defined contexts, or else we risk unintended consequences.”
Government urged to legislate
The Committee heard that current laws for SDVs are archaic and limiting, especially concerning testing and legal liability. Witnesses told us the sector is “crying out” for regulation. We commend the work of the Law Commissions and the Government in devising a new legal framework, Connected & Automated Mobility 2025.
That framework has broad support, albeit with more detail needed in some areas. This makes it disappointing that the Government has not committed to legislating in this Parliament to put this framework in place.
The SDVs sector is a British success story, and the UK has a competitive advantage that we must maintain. The Committee urges Government to pass comprehensive legislation in the next parliamentary session to put in place the robust regulatory framework it promised.
This should cover vehicle approvals, liability for accidents, cybersecurity, and the use of personal data. Failing to do so will do significant and lasting damage both to the UK’s SDVs industry and the country’s reputation as a trailblazer.
Government’s definition of safe ‘too weak and too vague’
While it is widely assumed that SDVs will prove safer than human drivers, this is not a given. The Committee heard that optimistic predictions often rely on SDVs becoming widely used on UK roads, which could be decades away, or assertions about human error that ignore other risks.
Safety must remain the Government’s overriding priority as SDVs encounter real-world complexity. Given this, MPs question the Government’s proposed ‘safety ambition’ – that self-driving vehicles will be “expected to achieve an equivalent level of safety to that of a competent and careful human driver” – believing it is “too weak and too vague”. The Government should set a clearer, more stretching threshold.
Greater automation will reduce time spent driving, leading to concerns that drivers may become less practised and therefore less skilled over time. Conversely, the requirement for drivers to be ready to take manual control of a vehicle means a risk of facing challenging scenarios with little notice.
The Committee recommends that Government should set out a strategy for the future of human driving in a world of SDVs. This should include possible changes to driving tests and a plan to ensure all drivers fully understand SDVs. The Committee also argues this should not impose new responsibilities on other road users and pedestrians or make them less safe.
Cybersecurity, road worthiness and legal liability
SDVs pose cybersecurity risks because of their connected rather than automated capabilities. This poses new dangers, which the law must evolve to meet. A safety-led culture will require wide access to data.
Ensuring SDVs are roadworthy will be more complicated than for conventional vehicles as there is more that can go wrong. Legal liability also becomes more complex as it is shared between owner and vehicle software operators.
This may cause problems for the insurance industry. The Government explained broadly how its new regulatory regime will work but accepted that more thinking was needed about how this will work in practice.
The Committee urges the Government to take a lead on these issues.
What infrastructure will be needed?
Self-driving vehicles will need well-maintained roads – an issue many road users already feel should be a high priority – as well as signage, nationwide connectivity, and up-to-date digital information about the road network.
While some steps have been taken towards this by the Government and public bodies, these preparations are too siloed and divorced from broader planning.
If the Government is serious about SDVs it should ensure meeting their needs is an integral part of future infrastructure strategy.
How could SDVs be used?
The Committee heard there is a range of possible uses for SDVs, including with HGVs, buses, taxis and private cars. It believes that, in time, SDVs have the potential to improve connectivity and provide significant benefits for safety and productivity in industries such as logistics.
However, the Government must take a cautious, gradual approach with the technology introduced only in well-defined and appropriate contexts. As such, the Committee broadly welcomes the Government’s strategy set out in August 2022.
However, without careful handling, there are concerns that SDVs could worsen congestion and exacerbate inequalities in transport access if, for example, self-driving private hire vehicles are unable to offer the same assistance to disabled people as human-driven ones.
Government must ensure the introduction of SDVs is responsive to the wider population and meets the UK’s transport policy objectives, which are the subject of a separate inquiry by the Transport Committee.
The impact of poor housing will be explored in the inquiry into how to prevent ill-health. In tomorrow’s second session focusing on ‘healthy places’, MPs will question experts on the relationship between housing and health with questions expected to cover the costs of poor housing to the NHS, the quality of rental properties, indoor ventilation and noise pollution.
The inquiry is seeking evidence on how housing can be designed to improve people’s health.
The session is also likely to consider the extent to which UK Government plans to create more homes through housebuilding or the transformation of non-residential buildings will help to deliver healthy homes.
The role of ‘healthy places’ is the second theme to be explored by the Health and Social Care Committee in its major inquiry into how to prevent ill-health.
A report published today by the Home Affairs Committee has found little evidence to indicate significant numbers of Albanian nationals are at risk in their own country and require asylum in the UK.
However, some Albanian citizens making asylum claims will have been trafficked, and women are disproportionately at risk from this form of crime. The UK has an obligation to support trafficking victims and they should only be returned to Albania if appropriate safeguards are in place.
In 2022, more than a quarter of the 45,755 people who crossed the Channel in small boats came from Albania and most claimed asylum. In one year the number of Albanians arriving in the UK by this route had gone from 800 to 12,301, a rise that was both unexpected and unexplained.
Albania is a safe country, it is not at war and is a candidate country to join the European Union. There is no clear basis for the UK to routinely accept thousands of asylum applications from Albanian citizens, the Committee finds.
However up to June 2022, 51% of asylum claims from Albania were initially accepted, a rate far higher than many comparable European nations. Nine countries, including Germany, accepted no asylum claims from Albania. The Home Office must explain why the UK’s acceptance rate was so high, particularly compared to other countries. It must also explain why the acceptance rate is substantially higher for women (88%) than for men (13%).
Maintaining positive relations with the Albanian Government should also be a key priority to ensure that the UK can return irregular migrants and offenders from UK prisons. Politicians, commentators and others should be careful to show restraint in their language and not single out Albania as the sole cause of the UK’s asylum pressures.
The report focusses on Albania due to the unexpected spike in small boat crossings and asylum claims by Albanian nationals in 2022. However, the Committee finds that it should not be singled out and scapegoated in relation to the UK’s ongoing asylum backlog or overcrowding at immigration processing centres.
The Prime Minister has committed to clearing the backlog by the end of the year and the Home Office needs to set out how it plans to achieve this. The Government should also provide quarterly progress reports, including information on the number of pending claims in the backlog, staffing levels for asylum caseworkers numbers and the number of asylum decisions made per week.
A key driver of migration from Albania to the UK is economic. People are prepared to make the journey, even in dangerous small boat crossings, for improved job prospects and higher incomes. The desire to come to the UK will continue until Albania become wealthier.
Improved awareness of work visa programmes would support formalised migration to the economic benefit of the UK and Albania, providing an alternative to people smuggling gangs and reducing the burden on the asylum system.
Only 325 work visas were granted to Albanian nationals in the first nine months of 2022, with evidence submitted to the inquiry arguing that a perceived difficulty in obtaining work in the UK through legal means could be driving people towards clandestine migration routes.
The Committee finds that more should be done to promote the availability of visas that would fill worker shortages in the UK economy and enable some transfer of wealth back to Albania. This would include short-term or seasonal work in sectors such as construction or agriculture.
Home Affairs Committee Chair, Dame Diana Johnson MP, said: “Such a substantial sudden increase in asylum claims from a seemingly peaceful country understandably raised concerns.
“While it is important that questions are asked and lessons are learnt, it is clear that the immigration picture is not static and will continue to evolve. New challenges are likely to continue to emerge and it is important that the UK improves its overall approach to asylum, rather than focus on one country.
“Changes in migration will inevitably place strain on any system, but the Government must do much more to ensure it can better handle these stresses. Most importantly it must improve the speed of decision making and clear the backlog as we set out in our Channel Crossings report in 2022. We expect the Home Office to set out how it plans to achieve this.
“People will continue to be attracted to the UK from Albania while it continues to offer job opportunities and higher wages. The UK should look at how access to work visa schemes can be improved to fill our skills or staffing gaps, while offering Albanian nationals a route to higher income, benefiting both nations.”
The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has launched a new inquiry into the relationship between ministers and officials and whether Government’s engine room still functions as intended.
Several high-profile dismissals of senior civil servants by ministers as well as criticisms of Civil Service impartiality and competence during the Brexit process and Covid-19 pandemic indicate a fundamental tension in relations between the Government and the Civil Service.
MPs are seeking evidence on whether civil servants feel confident in giving honest advice to ministers, the role of ministers and Civil Service leadership in creating an environment where officials can “speak truth to power” and if not, the consequences this has on good policymaking.
In a recent evidence session, Cabinet Secretary Simon Case highlighted how officials face a challenge managing the “juxtaposition” in the Civil Service Code between the “duty to support the Government of the day to the best of your ability and upholding the values” of an independent and impartial Civil Service.
MPs will examine whether the role of Cabinet Secretary is sufficiently empowered to effectively lead the Civil Service, where accountability lies in policymaking, and whether Ministers’ role in the hiring, firing, and promotion of Civil Service leaders is appropriate and conducive to effective government.
William Wragg MP, Chair of PACAC, said: “It is a fundamental principle that the Civil Service serves the government of the day, yet growing tensions between ministers and their officials and public criticisms of Civil Service impartiality and competence have called into question the efficacy of the Westminster model.
“Events such as the Covid-19 pandemic response and Brexit, as well as high-profile dismissals of Civil Service leaders, have raised questions about where accountability lies in Government, but also the integrity of our public administration machine.
“Our inquiry aims to understand how the Civil Service leadership operates today, how the Government’s interaction with officials may have deviated from established practice, and, ultimately, whether our public administration still serves its intended purpose or whether it is in need of reform.”
Terms of reference
The Committee welcomes submissions by 5pm on Friday 16 June addressing any or all of the following questions on:
The status and constitutional position of the Civil Service, including:
The extent to which the established values of the Civil Service, enshrined in the Civil Service Code, continue to determine the conduct of Officials and are respected by the governments they serve.
Whether the Civil Service feels sufficiently confident or empowered to give honest advice to Ministers and ‘speak truth to power’, and if not, what the consequences are for policy making and governance. To what extent does the Civil Service leadership have responsibility for ensuring that an environment exists where officials do feel empowered to give candid advice?
What responsibility does the Civil Service have for ensuring constitutional propriety in the conduct of government?
Civil Service Leadership
What constitutes good leadership in the Civil Service?
As the Head of the Civil Service, is the Cabinet Secretary sufficiently empowered to lead the Civil Service and how far is the Civil Service Board equipped to provide effective leadership?
The extent to which the Civil Service has an obligation to enhance its capability and, if so, whether that can be exercised unless such an obligation also applies to governments. Should any such stewardship obligation be formalised?
Whether Ministers’ current role in the hiring, firing, and promotion of Civil Service leaders is appropriate and conducive to effective government.
Policymaking
Is the respective accountability of Ministers and Officials for policy formulation and delivery sufficiently clear and, if not, how might it be made more so?
Is the current system of Ministerial Directions effective and sufficient?
In all of these areas, are there lessons from other countries that the UK can useful adopt?
The health assessments system to access vital benefits for those who cannot work or face extra costs due to disability or ill-health continues to let down those who rely on it, according to Westminster’s Work and Pensions Committee.
In its latest Report, the Committee calls for the implementation of several measures that would be relatively quick and easy wins to improve trust, drive down the high rate of decisions reversed on appeal and reduce waiting times.
It says assessments should be recorded by default, with claimants having the option to opt-out, adding that footage could be used to review cases more accurately without having to go to appeal, and help assessors learn from past mistakes.
Some of the improvements the Committee suggest could drive down the high rate of decisions reversed on appeal, which still stands at 69% for Personal Independence Payment (PIP). Although the Work Capability Assessment used for Universal Credit and Employment and Support Allowance is due to be abolished, it will remain in place until at least 2026. Meanwhile, PIP assessments will continue, so retaining the status quo is not an option.
MPs on the Committee also recommended allowing claimants to choose between remote or in-person assessments, extending the deadline to return forms, targets to reduce assessment waiting times, and payments to people who have been forced to wait beyond the new targets.
Committee Chair Sir Stephen Timms MP said: ““We surveyed eight and a half thousand people as part of our inquiry and found a profound lack of trust in the system as a consistent theme.
“Many will welcome abolition of the Work Capability Assessment. The Government’s process improvements, and recognition that the system causes undue stress and hardship, are steps in the right direction.
“However, waiting years for changes won’t cut it when quicker wins are available: flexibility of choice on assessment by phone or face-to-face; recording assessments by default; extending deadlines to reduce stress; and sending claimants their reports. All this will give much-needed transparency to a process that so few trust yet affects their lives so fundamentally.
“All efforts must be made for unnecessary limbo and stress for claimants to be put to an end.”
Work is a central aspect of people’s live as it often provides their principal source of income and can provide a sense of purpose. Employment can also contribute to an individual’s feelings of self-respect and dignity. However, the world of work has also been recognised as involving an imbalance of power between employer and workers This imbalance can lead to exploitation, discrimination and other harmful practices.
States have an obligation to protect workers from breaches of their human rights. This can include ensuring employers don’t interfere with their worker’s freedom of association, for example by preventing them from joining a trade union. States also have an obligation to ensure workers aren’t subject to surveillance and workplace monitoring that amounts to a breach of their right to private and family life.
There are a large number of laws and regulations that protect rights at work. This inquiry will specifically look at how the universal protections guaranteed in the European Convention on Human Rights apply to the world of work and the rights of workers.
The Committee is undertaking a separate piece of work providing legislative scrutiny of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill.
Committee Chair Joanna Cherry KC MP said: “Employment often has an inherent power imbalance that can leave workers vulnerable to exploitation or discrimination. There is an obligation on the Government to ensure that there is a comprehensive framework in place that ensure the rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights are protected at work.
“The Joint Committee on Human Rights has launched this inquiry to understand how rights are currently protected at work and pinpoint where greater safeguards may be needed.”
Terms of reference
The Committee invites written evidence on the following questions. The deadline for submitting written evidence is 24 March 2023. Please note, your submission does not need to address every question in the terms of reference.
Does the current law effectively protect the rights of trade unions and workers to take industrial action under Article 11 ECHR? Does the law effectively protect the right to strike for the purposes of other international human rights instruments, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Labour Organisation Conventions?
The right to privacy and surveillance at work
What forms of surveillance, if any, that are used to monitor workers raise concerns under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to private and family life)? Are there any associated concerns under Article 14 (freedom from discrimination)?
What is the legal framework in the UK that governs surveillance in the workplace?
Where surveillance is used to monitor workers, does the current legal framework adequately protect their Article 8 right to private and family life? If not, what changes need to be made to ensure it does?
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion and freedom of expression in the workplace
Does domestic law strike the right balance between workers’ Article 9 right to freedom of religion or belief and the rights of employers? If not, what changes are needed?
Does domestic law strike the right balance between workers’ Article 10 right to freedom of expression and the rights of employers? If not, what changes are needed?
Does domestic law provide adequate protection for the rights of workers to be free from harassment at work by third parties on account of their religion or beliefs?
Labour market exploitation
What is the current legal and policy framework for tackling labour exploitation in the UK? Is that framework effective to protect workers’ rights under Article 4 ECHR, which prohibits slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour?
Are there any improvements that could be made to better tackle exploitative labour practices which are contrary to Article 4 in the UK?
Do workers from particular groups or in precarious employment disproportionately experience labour market exploitation? Does this raise concerns under Article 14 ECHR (freedom from discrimination)?
Retained EU Law and workers’ rights
To what extent is the UK’s compliance with its human rights obligations, in relation to the protection of workers, currently dependent on retained EU law?
International human rights treaties
Does the UK effectively comply with its international obligations to protect workers’ rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights, and International Labour Organisation Conventions? If not, what improvements should be made?
Closing date for written submissions is 24 March 2023.
The Government response to the Women and Equalities Committee report on menopause and the workplace is a “missed opportunity to protect vast numbers of talented and experienced women from leaving the workforce.”
Published today, the UK Government’s response rejects five of the Committee’s recommendations outright, including the recommendation to consult on making menopause a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and pilot a specific menopause leave policy.
In a letter to Health Minister Maria Caulfield, the Chair of the Committee Caroline Nokes expressed concern that the Government has “ignored the significant evidence base” for equality law reform and called on the Government to review its position.
The Committee also highlights the low cost but high impact opportunities for model workplace menopause policies and menopause leave, which the Government has dismissed.
In the letter, the Committee highlighted it was “extremely disappointing that the Menopause Taskforce has not met since prior to the summer recess, and that the industry roundtable on HRT supplies has been delayed a number of times.”
The Committee’s report, published in July 2022, argued that the overlooked impact of menopause is causing the UK economy to ‘haemorrhage talent’.
It also argued that the current law does not sufficiently protect women experiencing menopause and does not offer proper redress to those who suffer menopause related discrimination, with evidence that many women have to demonstrate their menopausal symptoms amount to a disability to get redress.
Though the Government said it has accepted, partly accepted or accepted in principle six of the recommendations, it comes under criticism from the Committee for not actually committing to any new work in response to the report.
Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, Rt Hon Caroline Nokes MP, said: “This belated response to our report is a missed opportunity to protect vast numbers of talented and experienced women from leaving the workforce, and leaves me unconvinced that menopause is a Government priority.
“For too long women have faced stigma, shame and dismissive attitudes when it comes to menopause. The evidence to our inquiry was crystal clear that urgent action was needed across healthcare and work settings to properly address women’s needs, yet Government progress has been glacial and its response complacent.
“Its refusal to even consult on reforming equalities law doesn’t make sense and we urge it to look again.”
“Problems in the energy supply market were apparent in 2018 – years before the unprecedented spike in prices that sparked the current crisis, and Ofgem was too slow to act.“
In a report published today Westminster’s Public Accounts Committee calls on the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Ofgem to say how they will make “the energy retail market work in the best interests of customers during the transition to net zero” after finding that failures at the energy regulator have come “at a considerable cost to billpayers”.
Since July 2021, 29 energy suppliers have failed, affecting around 4 million households. Customers have been left to pay the £2.7 billion cost of supplier failures. This means an extra £94 per household, a cost that will very likely increase.
The Committee found that this was due to “Ofgem’s failure to effectively regulate the energy supplier market”.
Ofgem “did not strike the right balance between promoting competition in the energy suppliers market and ensuring energy suppliers were financially resilient”.
Despite problems with the financial resilience of energy retailers emerging in 2018 Ofgem did not tighten requirements for new suppliers until 2019, and for existing suppliers until 2021. By this point wholesale gas and electricity prices increased to unprecedented levels.
The price cap “is providing only very limited protection to households from increases in the wholesale price of energy”, and Ofgem expects prices could “get significantly worse through 2023”. The Committee says BEIS and Ofgem should “review the costs and benefits of the price cap from a consumer’s perspective” to inform decisions about the future of energy price controls.
The position of vulnerable customers, who already pay higher energy prices, is “unacceptable”.
Dame Meg Hillier MP, Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said: “ “It is true that global factors caused the unprecedented gas and electricity prices that have caused so many energy supplier failures over the last year, at such terrible cost to households. But the fact remains that we have regulators to set the framework to shore us up for the bad times.
“Problems in the energy supply market were apparent in 2018 – years before the unprecedented spike in prices that sparked the current crisis, and Ofgem was too slow to act.
“Households will pay dear, with the cost of bailouts added to record and rising bills. The PAC wants to see a plan, within six months, for how Government and Ofgem will put customers’ interests at the heart of a reformed energy market, driving the transition to Net Zero.”
The Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry examines the Government’s policies and procedures relating to asylum seekers and the impact these have on their human rights.
This will include the UK’s approach the availability of “safe and legal” routes for asylum seekers, the treatment of those arriving outside of these routes, and attempts to relocate asylum seekers outside the UK. It will also examine the treatment of asylum seekers once in the UK, including treatment in short-term holding facilities, conditions in detention, accommodation, restrictions on movement, and the right to work.
The inquiry also assesses whether the UK’s current legal framework is adequate to meet its human rights obligations to those who are victims of modern slavery or human trafficking.
Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Joanna Cherry KC MP said: “The UK has a long-standing obligation to provide a place of sanctuary to those fleeing war and persecution.
“We have launched this inquiry to examine whether the current approach to asylum meets the UK’s human rights obligations. Are the current routes for asylum seekers to come to the UK adequate, and is it right for those excluded from “safe and legal routes” to be punished for coming to the UK even if they have fled conflict or persecution?
“Can the UK outsource its asylum obligations to third countries and still ensure the human rights of those seeking asylum are protected?
“We want to look beyond fearful headlines about the cost of hotel accommodation or the numbers of asylum seekers arriving, to consider the experience of those going through the asylum system and the way they are treated.
“Fundamentally, is the way asylum seekers are treated appropriate and lawful, or is the UK Government falling short of the human rights standards designed to protect them, and all of us?
“Given the terrible conditions we have witnessed at Manston and the new Home Secretary’s seeming delight at the prospect of further flights to Rwanda, this inquiry could not be more timely.”
Background
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in Article 14 that “everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution”.
The Refugee Convention built on this with the establishment of a regime of international refugee protection, which was ratified by the UK in 1954. The Convention defines a refugee as a person outside their country of nationality or habitual residence, due to well-founded fear of persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion, and unable or unwilling to return to that country for fear of persecution.
In addition, the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. Amongst other things, it prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3 ECHR), as well as slavery and forced labour (Article 4 ECHR). It also provides for a right to liberty and security (Article 5 ECHR) and a right to private and family life (Art 8 ECHR).
Asylum seekers often come from countries affected by violence, conflict, and human rights abuses, and a portion of those who leave come to the UK.
In 2022, the number of new asylum applications rose to 63,089, from 48,540 in the previous year. As of June 2022, there were 122,213 asylum claims pending an initial decision, out of which 89,231 cases had been pending an initial decision for more than 6 months. Most asylum claims in the UK are successful – in 2021, the estimated overall grant rate where a final outcome has been reached was 77%.
The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 made significant amendments to the legislative framework for the asylum system. Changes include the introduction of new powers to remove asylum seekers, the creation of a two-tier system for asylum claims, and the inadmissibility of claims by persons with a connection to safe third States.
The Government has also sought through the UK Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership to send certain asylum seekers to Rwanda to make claims for asylum in Rwanda.
Terms of reference
The Joint Committee on Human Rights is looking into the rights of asylum seekers in the UK, with a view to identifying human rights concerns. To inform its work, the Committee invites submissions of no more than 1,500 words from interested groups and individuals. The deadline for submissions is 15 December 2022. We would welcome evidence covering the following questions:
1. Is it compatible with the UK’s human rights obligations to deny asylum to those who do not use what the Government calls “safe and legal routes”? 2. What “safe and legal routes” currently exist for asylum seekers in the UK? Should new routes be introduced?
Relocation of asylum seekers
3. Is the policy of relocating asylum seekers to third countries consistent with the UK’s human rights obligations?
Detention
4. Are the rules on detention and processing, and the treatment of detained asylum seekers, consistent with the UK’s human rights obligations?
Electronic tagging
5. Is the electronic tagging of asylum seekers a necessary and proportionate interference with their human rights?
Legal aid, accommodation, and subsistence
6. Is the support available to asylum seekers under the legal aid, accommodation, and subsistence rules compliant with the UK’s human rights obligations?
Right to work
7. How do the rules on right to work impact on the human rights of asylum seekers?
Modern slavery
8. Is the UK’s legal framework for tackling modern slavery and human trafficking effective, and is it compatible with our human rights obligations? Are there changes that should be made?
9. Is there any evidence that modern slavery laws are being abused by people “gaming” the system?
Nationality and Borders Act 2022
10. To what extent has the enactment of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 had an impact on the human rights of asylum seekers?
We understand that the issues raised in this work may be sensitive or upsetting and the following organisations may be able to offer support or further information:
Asylum Aid – free legal aid advice and representation to asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. Call 020 7354 9631 Email advice@asylumaid.org.uk
British Red Cross – support to refugees and asylum seekers in the UK including emergency assistance to those who are destitute, and family reunion and resettlement services. Call 0808 196 3651
London Destitution Service – Refugee Council – support for asylum seekers or rejected asylum seekers who are destitute, and support to vulnerable and homeless asylum seekers who have lost contact with their asylum application and have no legal representation. Call 02073466700 Email destitution@refugeecouncil.org.uk
Migrant Help – free 24/7 helpline providing independent advice and support to asylum seekers in the UK in your own language. Call 0808 8010 503 Webchat; Online Enquiry Form
Samaritans – for everyone, 24 hours a day, every day. Call 116 123
