Call for evidence: Legislative Scrutiny of Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has issued a call for evidence for a new inquiry conducting legislative scrutiny of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. 

The bill would make a number of changes to the UK's border security and immigration system. This would include new criminal offences aimed at tackling immigration-related crimes and increased powers for the seizure of devices suspected to contain information about organised immigration crime. 

The Joint Committee on Human Rights is undertaking scrutiny of the bill to assess its compatibility with international and domestic human rights standards.   

Call for evidence 

The Joint Committee on Human Rights invites submissions of no more than 1500 words. To find out more information about how to submit evidence, please visit the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill inquiry page.  

The deadline for submissions is 11 April 2025.  

In particular, the Committee is interested in receiving views on the following questions: 

1. Clauses 13-17 create new ‘precursor' offences relating to immigration crimes, including supplying or handling articles for use in immigration crime, and collecting information for use in immigration crime. Is the scope of these provisions sufficiently clear and circumscribed, having regard in particular to Article 31 of the Refugee Convention, which prohibits the penalisation of refugees in certain circumstances? 

1. Clause 18 makes it an offence for a person, while journeying by water to the UK from France, Belgium or the Netherlands, to endanger another person (i.e. to do an act which causes or risks death of or serious injury to another person). 

1. Are the CPS's general discretion and guidance for public prosecutors an adequate safeguard against breaches of Article 8 (right to private and family life) in relation to the endangerment offence in clause 18? 

1. Is this offence compatible with Article 31 of the Refugee Convention, which prohibits the penalisation of refugees in certain circumstances? 

1. Under clauses 34-35, an authorised person may take biometric information from a person if the Government is considering helping them leave a third country and they might then need leave to enter the UK. The information must then be passed to the Secretary of State, who can keep and use it for purposes relating to immigration, nationality, law enforcement or national security. Are these provisions compatible with Article 8 ECHR, bearing in mind in particular that under the Bill, the transfer of information is to be taken as being necessary for important reasons of public interest for the purposes of the UK GDPR. 

1. The Bill will repeal the majority of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (IMA), but will retain various provisions. 

1. Is the retention of section 12 IMA compatible with the requirements of Article 5 ECHR, previously guaranteed by the common law application of the Hardial Singh principles? 

1. Is the retention of section 29 IMA, which broadens the public order disqualification in relation to victims of trafficking and modern slavery, compatible with the UK's obligations under ECAT and Article 4 of the ECHR? 

1. Is the retention of section 59 IMA, which makes asylum and human rights claims by people from certain states automatically inadmissible, compatible with the rights of people from those states who seek asylum in the UK? 

1. Is the retention of section 62 IMA, which provides that decision makers shall take as damaging to asylum seekers' credibility a failure to allow access to their phone, necessary and proportionate? 

1. Clause 41 is intended to “clarify” that the Home Office may detain someone subject to conducive deportation from the point at which the Home Office serves notification that deportation is being considered. Is the retrospective application of this power adequately prescribed by law as required by Article 5 ECHR? 

1. Clauses 46 to 50 alter the operation of Serious Crime Prevention Orders, including providing courts with a power to impose electronic monitoring. Orders, including electronic tagging conditions, can be imposed where there are “reasonable grounds to believe that the [overall] order would protect the public” and that this particular requirement is “appropriate for the purpose of protecting the public by preventing, restricting or disrupting involvement by the person concerned in serious crime.” Should the threshold for imposing electronic monitoring requirements be higher given the substantial interference with rights under Article 8 ECHR? 

1. Clause 47 introduces a new interim SCPO (ISCPO) which would allow the High Court to impose requirements on the subject while the full application is pending. The test for imposing an ISCPO is whether the court “considers it just to do so”. Is the threshold test for imposing Interim Serious Crime Protection Orders set at an appropriate level? Would a test of necessity provide better protection against abuse, or would it prevent interim SCPOs operating as intended? 

1. Clause 51 provides, with retroactive effect, that fees unlawfully charged in relation to non-UK qualifications are to be treated as having been lawfully charged. Is the retroactive effect of clause 51 compatible with the ECHR? 

1. Are there any other human rights issues arising from the Bill that you wish to draw to the attention of the Committee?