Immigration Bill's lack of detail could have 'profound effect' on vulnerable individuals

Greater scrutiny on the effects of the Immigration Bill is needed after peers raised concerns on behalf of vulnerable individuals and the rule of law.

In a new report, the House of Lords Constitution Committee said the Immigration Bill does not define what constitutes 'a genuine obstacle' to failed asylum-seekers leaving the UK, which may prevent them receiving support from the government.

The Immigration Bill would allow the home secretary to provide support for failed asylum-seekers who could become destitute if they did not face a 'genuine obstacle' to leaving the UK.

However, the Bill leaves the definition of what constitutes such an obstacle to secondary legislation.

The committee said peers may wish to consider whether it would be more appropriate for the term to be defined in the Bill so it can be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny.

The report highlights that peers are being asked to legislate on a provision that will affect individuals in potentially desperate circumstances without a clear understanding of what the new rules will mean in practice.

Ahead of the Bill's debate in the Lords next week, committee chairman Lord Lang said the proposals raised important constitutional issues.

'We are concerned about the lack of a definition of what constitutes a "genuine obstacle" to a failed asylum seeker leaving the UK,' he commented.

'This is clearly a change that could have a profound effect on vulnerable individuals. We think it might be more appropriate for the definition, which will be crucial in determining whom will be affected, to be clear on the face of the Bill so the House can make an informed decision.'

The committee also expressed concerns about provisions that give the home secretary the power to overrule independent judicial decisions of the First-tier Immigration Tribunal on immigration bail conditions.

Under the Bill's provisions, Theresa May could, for example, require a bailed detainee to wear an electronic tag - even if that condition was not imposed by the tribunal.

The committee questioned whether a minister unilaterally overriding a judicial body was compatible with the rule of law.

'This could be seen as undermining the rule of law,' said Lang. 'If the government wants more immigration detainees to be subject to electronic tagging it should propose new criteria for the First-tier Immigration Tribunal to take into account rather than seeking to override judicial decisions.'