The key points in Rishi Sunak’s illegal immigration bill

The new Illegal Migration Bill will place a duty on Suella Braverman to remove migrants who arrived illegally and "radically narrow" the range of legal challenges and appeals that could suspend their deportation.

Ms Braverman, the Home Secretary, promised the new legislation would enable the Government to "act now" to "stop the boats", and acknowledged public patience had run out.

Here, Daniel Martin and Charles Hymas explain the key measures in the Bill.

Detention

The Bill places a new legal duty on the Home Secretary to detain and remove those arriving in the UK illegally.

It states they will be swiftly sent to their home country if it is deemed safe, or to a safe third country such as Rwanda, where they will be “supported to rebuild their lives”, the Home Office said.

In a letter to all MPs and peers, Suella Braverman states: “This will break the business model of people smuggling networks, and ultimately save lives.

“In return, it will free up capacity so that we can better support those in genuine need of protection through safe and legal routes.”

Under the legislation, all illegal arrivals will be declared inadmissible to stay.

People who enter the UK illegally will be detained, with no recourse to bail or judicial review, within the first 28 days.

Ministers have promised that cases will be processed more quickly than at present.

Detention powers will be extended, with the UK able to keep people locked up for as long as there is a reasonable prospect of removal.

In exceptional circumstances if there is a chance that someone would suffer a real risk of serious and irreversible harm when they are relocated to a third country, they would not be removed until it was safe to do so. Even in these cases they would have a maximum 45 days to remain in the UK before the appeal is exhausted.

The Government has pledged to buy disused military bases to house asylum seekers who are at present holed up in hotels.

Ministers hope the use of military bases will deter others from attempting to come to the UK. At present, the Government is spending £6.2 million a day on hotels.

The new laws on detention take effect immediately, and will apply retrospectively once the law is passed.

Deportation

The new duty on the Home Secretary to remove illegal immigrants takes precedence over their rights under modern slavery and human rights laws.

It means that people who come to the UK illegally will be prevented from settling in the country and will face a permanent ban on returning.

The number of appeals and challenges available to suspend removal will be radically narrowed. 

Only those under 18, medically unfit to fly, or at real risk of serious and irreversible harm in the country we are removing them to, will be able to delay their removal.

Any other challenges or human rights claims can only be heard after removal, remotely.

In her letter to MPs, Ms Braverman wrote: “Other human rights claims, including the right to private or family life, or other forms of judicial review cannot suspend your removal. They will be heard remotely, after removal.

“You will face a permanent bar on lawful re-entry to the UK and a permanent bar from securing settlement in the UK or from securing British citizenship through naturalisation or registration, subject only to very narrow exceptions.”

Legal issues

Mrs Braverman has acknowledged that the “robust and novel” illegal immigration Bill might not comply with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), setting up the prospect of a legal battle with Strasbourg judges.

In a letter to MPs, the Home Secretary said this acknowledgement in the Bill - known as a section 19 (1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 - did not mean it was incompatible with the convention but that there was more than a 50 per cent chance that it may not be.

This means government lawyers have assessed its chances of withstanding a legal challenge as more likely to fail than succeed. It is the first time an immigration law has been qualified in this way.

However, Mrs Braverman said: “We are testing the limits but remain confident that this Bill is compatible with international law.”

At the heart of the issue are provisions within the Bill that give ministers powers to exempt the legislation from human rights and modern slavery laws, as well as potentially ignoring injunctions by European judges.

The Bill proposes disapplying section three of the Human Rights Act which means migrants are effectively barred from using the legislation to block their removal from the UK.

It means that the Home Secretary’s new legal duty to remove migrants - which she is handed in the Bill - takes precedence in law over migrants' asylum, human rights and modern slavery claims.

Other human rights claims, including the right to private or family life, or other forms of judicial review cannot suspend a migrant’s removal.

Migrants will be subject to “non-suspensive” deportation orders which mean any human rights or other claims will only be heard abroad except in exceptional circumstances.

They will also be disqualified from using modern slavery rules to prevent removal. If a migrant is identified as a potential victim of modern slavery, they will be safely returned home from where they were removed against their will or to another safe country.

The Bill also gives the Home Secretary powers to counter ECHR injunctions like the one which blocked the first deportation flight of Channel migrants to Rwanda.

The legislation will include a “marker” clause whereby the Government could ignore the injunctions, known as rule 39, if negotiations with the ECHR fail to resolve Britain’s concerns about them.

Ministers have maintained the injunction, known as rule 39, is not grounded in the ECHR but is part of the court’s “internal rules” so is not binding on UK courts and can be disregarded by them.

Mrs Braverman told MPs: “I must say this rule 39 and the process that enabled the Strasburg court to block at the last minute flights to Rwanda, after our courts had refused injunctions was deeply flawed. 

“Our ability to control our borders cannot be held back by an opaque process conducted late at night with no chance to make our case or even appeal decision. 

“That’s why we’ve initiated discussions in Strasburg to ensure that blocking orders meet a basic natural justice standard, one that prevents abuse of rule 39 to thwart removal and it’s why the Bill will set up the conditions for the UK future compliance for such orders.”

Safe and legal routes

The Bill promises a new “safe and legal” route for those seeking sanctuary in the UK.

The numbers allowed in will be capped by Parliament, with an annual vote to set each year’s cap, which will take into account local authority capacity for housing and public services.

If there is a humanitarian crisis within the world that requires a response, then the UK will step up and offer sanctuary to those in need.

In addition, the legislation will expand the list of countries that are considered safe in law. 

There will be a new dedicated unit to speed up the processing of Albanian cases.

The list is designed to make it unquestionably clear when someone does not need the protection of the UK, because they are not at risk of persecution in their own country.

In her letter to MPs and peers, Ms Braverman wrote: “As we reduce illegal migration, we will do more to help the most vulnerable who are at risk of war and persecution through safe and legal routes. 

“The Bill will introduce an annual cap, to be determined by Parliament, on the number of refugees the UK will accept, once illegal migration is under control.

“This will allow us to plan for an orderly system, in conjunction with local authorities, that takes in consideration local capacity for accommodation, public services and support.”

How countries around the world are getting tough on illegal migration

By James Crisp

Britain is not the only country to launch a crackdown on immigration and asylum.

Here is how other nations around the world compare.

United States

Joe Biden’s administration has recently announced his toughest border policy yet, echoing Donald Trump and warning migrants who cross the border illegally that they will almost all be deported.

People who cross into the US at the southern border will be automatically denied asylum if they have not tried to seek protection in a country they have already passed through, or booked an appointment with border staff through an app.

The Biden administration is also considering reviving the practice of detaining migrant families who cross the border illegally - instead of releasing them into the US with ankle bracelets.

Sweden

Once-liberal Sweden has dramatically toughened its migration and asylum laws since a new coalition government was formed in October last year after elections that handed strong gains to the hard-Right.

Measures including forcing asylum seekers to pay a fee for processing their claims and a network of “transit centres”, where migrants must stay for the entire processing of their asylum claim have been introduced.  

Denmark

Denmark’s strict rules on asylum and migration have long made it an outlier among Western European countries.

Most recently, Copenhagen is looking to sign a similar deal with Rwanda for offshore asylum seeking processing as Britain has agreed, despite being led by a centre-Left government.

Denmark introduced a controversial “jewellery law” as long ago as 2016.

The law allows Danish authorities to seize cash, valuables and other jewellery worth more than £793 to pay for their welcome.

Hungary

Budapest has long-hoped to build a coalition of EU governments in favour of offshore migrant processing centres, similar to the UK’s Rwanda plan.

The European Court of Justice ruled Hungary’s plans to house asylum seekers in a narrow strip of land between border fences while their claims were processed was illegal.

Hungary has now changed the law so asylum claims should be made at Hungarian embassies rather than at the country’s borders.

Italy

Italy was one of the EU countries to bear the brunt of the 2015 migration crisis, and shoulder the burden of Brussels’ rules that demand asylum seekers claim sanctuary in the first safe country they arrive in.

In February, the parliament passed a law requiring NGO search and rescue ships to sail to a designated, rather than the closest port, and prevents them from looking for other migrant boats in distress. Ship captains face fines of up to £44,462 for failure to comply.

Greece

Greece credits its border walls with Turkey for preventing 260,000 migrants from entering Europe last year.

Athens’ 16ft steel wall is more than 17 miles long and the Greeks plan to expand it by another 22 miles, with the ultimate goal of it covering most of the 120 mile border.

France

An immigration bill that will reach the French parliament late March wants to grant temporary residency permits to illegal migrants working in sectors "under strain” and place those ordered to leave the country on a “wanted list” in a bid to speed up their expulsion.

The government wants to simplify and speed up the asylum process by reducing appeal options. Under the current system, it can take two years for migrants ordered to leave to exhaust their appeals.

The bill includes measures favoured by the Right, such as making expulsions easier, eliminating protection for groups such as those who arrived in France as small children, and denying welfare benefits to those told to leave.

Australia

Australia’s tough immigration rules have long been championed as the example to live up to by conservatives.

In February, it was announced that about 19,000 refugees who have lived on temporary visas would be eligible to permanently stay in the country under new rules.

But the new centre-Left government reiterated its support for a decade-old border policy which involves the navy towing or turning away migrant boats trying to reach Australian waters.

Germany

Berlin is expected to reform its migration laws to make it easier for skilled African workers to migrate to the country.

Germany famously welcomed more than a million refugees within its borders during the 2015 migrant crisis.