Asylum, appeals and human rights in the Immigration and Asylum Bill.

Written evidence by William Gomes, also published as William Nicholas Gomes.

The evidence at a glance.

• Overall conclusion: the Bill pursues legitimate aims but should not proceed in its present form.
• Central argument: the Bill is deterrence-led and leaves untouched the operational causes of delay: poor first-instance decisions, inadequate early legal advice, shortages in immigration legal aid, accommodation dependence caused by the work ban and insufficient safe and legal routes.
• Six areas of concern: the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority (Part 1); clauses 17 to 20 and Article 8 ECHR; core protection and Article 34 of the Refugee Convention; asylum support payments (Part 4); the modern slavery provisions and Article 4 ECHR; and the Bill’s relationship with the November 2025 policy statement Restoring Order and Control.
• Standard applied: where a measure interferes with family life, imposes debt or weakens a remedy, the Government must show a legitimate aim, a rational connection to it, no less intrusive alternative and a fair overall balance. The evidence concludes that this case has not yet been made.
• Status of the submission: an academic legal and human rights assessment, not a partisan or organisational submission.

Legitimate aims, contested means.

The evidence accepts that effective immigration control, timely decisions, protection from exploitation and removal after fair process are proper public objectives. Its question is whether the Bill’s chosen means are lawful, proportionate, workable and consistent with the ECHR, the Refugee Convention, the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (ECAT) and the common law duty of fairness. Gomes concludes that they are not, in the Bill’s present form, and that the cumulative effect of the Bill, the accompanying Immigration Rules changes and Restoring Order and Control must be assessed together, because that combined effect is what individuals will experience.

Key figures cited in the evidence.

• 87,450 outstanding asylum appeals at the end of March 2026, a 223 per cent increase over two years; a substantial proportion of processed appeals ended with the refusal overturned or withdrawn by the Home Office.
• 42 per cent of asylum decisions reviewed in National Audit Office sampling contained significant or fail errors.
• Repeated reviews of protection status could generate up to 1.1 million additional reviews in the first ten years, at a cost of up to £725 million.
• Asylum support stands at £49.18 a week in self-catered accommodation and £9.95 a week in catered accommodation; public discussion has referred to a possible flat debt of about £10,000 for support recovery.
• Only 6 bad-faith disqualifications arose from 23,411 modern slavery referrals.
• 476 people were resettled through the UK Resettlement Scheme in the year to March 2026, while refugee family reunion has been suspended.
• Asylum applications fell in the year to March 2026, Channel crossings in the first half of 2026 fell compared with 2025, and the initial decision backlog also fell.

Figures are as cited in the submission, drawing on Home Office immigration statistics, National Audit Office material, House of Commons Library briefing CBP-10940 and published modelling. Consult the original evidence for its sources.

Analysis by part of the Bill.

1. The Independent Immigration Appeals Authority (Part 1)

Part 1 would move most immigration and asylum appeals from the First-tier Tribunal to a new Authority. The evidence argues that a statement of independence is not enough: a body deciding claims under the Refugee Convention and Articles 3, 4 and 8 ECHR must be independent in design, appointment, tenure, resources, culture and appearance. Because immigration decisions fall outside Article 6 ECHR (Maaouia v France), the governing standards are the common law, the principle of legality, Article 13 read with arguable Convention rights and the duty of non-refoulement. The Bill allows decisions by people who need not be legally qualified, and onward appeal to the Upper Tribunal is limited to points of law, so factual errors in life-changing cases may go uncorrected. The backlog, the evidence notes, is driven by poor initial decisions, past statutory complexity and lack of advice, not by tribunal independence.

2. Clauses 17 to 20 and Article 8 ECHR

The evidence argues that these clauses risk excluding relevant family and private life factors before proportionality is reached, which is difficult to reconcile with Agyarko, Rhuppiah, HA (Iraq) and Unuane v United Kingdom. Clause 18 narrows family life to partners and parents of minor children, risking the exclusion of disabled adults, elderly parents, carers and families reshaped by persecution. Clause 19 replaces “little weight” with “no weight” in some private life cases and adds weight against people who depend on health or social care, with possible discriminatory impact. Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 and ZH (Tanzania) require children’s best interests to be a primary consideration. The evidence expects over-prescription to produce satellite litigation rather than certainty.

3. Temporary or core protection

Article 34 of the Refugee Convention requires states, as far as possible, to facilitate refugees’ assimilation and naturalisation. Temporary protection is not unlawful in itself, but Restoring Order and Control indicates 30-month grants, repeated review, a possible 20-year path to settlement and reduced family reunion. The evidence argues that long-term insecurity of this kind damages employment, education, housing, mental health treatment and children’s stability, and is hard to reconcile with the Convention, as UNHCR has also warned. It cautions that clause 22 should not narrow the Convention concept of lawful stay.

4. Asylum support payments (Part 4)

Clauses 23 and 24 would allow recovery of asylum support costs from people later judged able to pay. The evidence argues that a destitution-only safeguard is too low: in Limbuela the House of Lords held that state-induced destitution can breach Article 3 where asylum seekers are prevented from supporting themselves. Charging recognised refugees, trafficking survivors, disabled people, lone parents and former children for support made necessary by the work ban and Home Office delay risks debt at the point when stability is needed, and raises Article 14 concerns read with Articles 3 and 8.

5. Modern slavery, trafficking and Article 4 ECHR

Article 4 ECHR, Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia, VCL and AN v United Kingdom and ECAT require effective identification, protection, investigation and non-punishment. Clause 36 would require delay, omission, inconsistency and similarity with other claims to damage credibility unless there are good reasons. The evidence argues that survivors often delay disclosure through fear, shame, trauma, coercion, debt bondage, language barriers or distrust of authorities, and that inconsistency may be evidence of trauma rather than dishonesty. Reducing access to protection may strengthen exploiters and increase the risk of re-trafficking.

6. The Bill, Restoring Order and Control and delegated powers

Key consequences will be delivered through Immigration Rules, regulations and administrative practice. The evidence asks Parliament not to approve broad enabling powers without seeing their effect on family reunion, settlement, support recovery, cessation, appeal procedure, detained appellants and trafficking victims. Powers affecting rights and remedies should be subject to the affirmative procedure, consultation, published drafts and equality, child-rights, legal aid and post-implementation assessment, with essential safeguards on the face of the Bill.

The submission’s ten recommendations.

1. The Bill should not proceed in its present form.
2. Part 1 should be withdrawn unless the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority is demonstrably independent, expert and no less fair than the First-tier Tribunal.
3. First-instance asylum quality, interpretation, disclosure of credibility concerns and legal aid should be addressed before appeal rights are narrowed.
4. Clauses 17 to 20 should be withdrawn or amended to preserve full Article 8 proportionality and child best-interests assessment.
5. Core protection should include durable status, settlement, naturalisation and family reunion.
6. Clause 22 should not narrow Refugee Convention rights attached to lawful stay.
7. Part 4 should be withdrawn; asylum support should not become a debt imposed on recognised refugees.
8. Earlier permission to work should be considered as a rights-respecting alternative to support recovery.
9. Modern slavery provisions should strengthen, not restrict, identification, recovery leave and protection against re-trafficking.
10. Draft regulations and full human rights, equality, child-rights, legal aid and integration impact assessments should be published before commencement.

The submission also sets out minimum safeguards for each part, including legally qualified adjudicators and oral hearings for protection and human rights appeals, published appeal outcome data, worked examples for clauses 17 to 20, an individual affordability assessment and exemptions for any support recovery, trauma-informed credibility rules, and a bar on removal where there is a real risk of re-trafficking or Article 3 ill-treatment.

Questions arising for Ministers.

• Will the Government publish the draft regulations on core protection, support recovery and appeal procedure before the Bill completes its Commons stages?
• Will protection and human rights appeals before the new Authority be decided by legally qualified adjudicators, with oral hearings where credibility, risk or vulnerability is disputed?
• What evidence supports clauses 17 to 20, and how will full Article 8 proportionality and children’s best interests be preserved?
• Has earlier permission to work been assessed as a less restrictive alternative to recovering asylum support costs?
• What evidence supports the modern slavery credibility and disqualification provisions, given 6 bad-faith disqualifications from 23,411 referrals?
• Will the Government publish a consolidated human rights memorandum covering the Bill, the Immigration Rules changes and Restoring Order and Control together?

Legal authorities and instruments relied on.

• European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 3, 4, 8, 13 and 14
• 1951 Refugee Convention, Article 34
• Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, Articles 12, 13, 14 and 26
• United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 3
• Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, section 55
• Maaouia v France (2000) 33 EHRR 42
• R (Limbuela) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 66
• ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 4
• R (Agyarko) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 11
• Rhuppiah v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] UKSC 58
• Unuane v United Kingdom (2021) 72 EHRR 24
• HA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] UKSC 22
• Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia (2010) 51 EHRR 1
• VCL and AN v United Kingdom (2021) 73 EHRR 9

Key questions about the evidence.

What is the IAB0002 written evidence?

IAB0002 is William Gomes’s written evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry Legislative Scrutiny: Immigration and Asylum Bill, published by the UK Parliament on 6 November 2026. It assesses the Bill’s compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights, the Refugee Convention and the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.

What does the evidence conclude about the Immigration and Asylum Bill?

The evidence accepts that the Bill pursues legitimate objectives but concludes that it should not proceed in its present form. It argues that the Bill’s principal measures are deterrence-led and do not address the operational causes of delay, including poor first-instance decision-making, inadequate early legal advice and shortages in immigration legal aid.

Which parts of the Bill does the evidence examine?

It examines six areas: the proposed Independent Immigration Appeals Authority; clauses 17 to 20 and Article 8 ECHR; temporary or core protection and Article 34 of the Refugee Convention; asylum support payments; the modern slavery and trafficking provisions under Article 4 ECHR; and the relationship between the Bill and the November 2025 policy statement Restoring Order and Control.

What are the main recommendations?

The recommendations include withdrawing Part 1 unless the new appeals body is demonstrably independent and expert, preserving full Article 8 proportionality and child best-interests assessment, giving core protection a durable route to settlement and family reunion, withdrawing Part 4 on asylum support payments, strengthening protection against re-trafficking, and publishing draft regulations and impact assessments before commencement.

How to cite this evidence.

Gomes, W. (2026) Written evidence submitted by Mr William Gomes (IAB0002). Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Immigration and Asylum Bill. London: UK Parliament. Available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/168137/html/

About the author and enquiries.

William Gomes is a doctoral researcher at the University of Essex, an author and the Director of The William Gomes Podcast. His written evidence has been published by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and by House of Commons committees, on subjects including education, children’s mental health, protest rights and disability employment. Parliamentarians, officials, organisations and journalists seeking a briefing, comment or interview can send an enquiry.

Read the original evidence.

This briefing summarises William Gomes’s submitted analysis and recommendations. Publication as written evidence does not imply endorsement by Parliament or a committee. Consult the official IAB0002 submission on Parliament’s website for the full argument, references and qualifications.

Explore all parliamentary evidence · Academic works and research profiles