Asylum reforms become law as Channel crossings top 14,000 for year so far

The Government’s sweeping asylum reforms have become law as the number of migrants crossing the Channel topped 14,000 for the year so far.

The Illegal Migration Bill became an Act of Parliament after being given Royal Assent, deputy speaker Sir Roger Gale announced in the Commons on Thursday afternoon.

It comes as Channel crossings continued and the provisional total for 2023 to date reached 14,071.

This time last year more than 15,000 arrivals had been recorded.

The much-criticised flagship legislation, central to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s pledge to “stop the boats” crossing the Channel, will prevent people from claiming asylum in the UK if they arrive through unauthorised means.

The Government also hopes the changes will ensure detained people are promptly removed, either to their home country or a third country such as Rwanda, which is currently the subject of a legal challenge.

Officials are still working on when the Act will come into force and it is anticipated elements of the new laws may be implemented in stages over the coming months.

But as of Thursday, “people who arrive illegally under the new laws will be banned from re-entering the UK and will not be eligible for settlement or citizenship, except in limited circumstances,” the Home Office said.

Campaigners have condemned the plans, arguing that it will not stop Channel crossings, will fail without the Rwanda deal, and fear it could see refugees detained indefinitely.

Sonya Sceats, chief executive of the charity Freedom from Torture, branded the Bill “deeply immoral”, adding: “We will not stop fighting for a kinder, fairer UK.”

Amnesty International UK said the Act “does not change why people are compelled to attempt dangerous journeys”, adding that “repression and conflict in places like Afghanistan, Iran and Sudan is not easing, and the UK’s contribution to protecting victims has long been modest by comparison to its rich neighbours, let alone many far poorer countries elsewhere”.

While the Royal College of Nursing branded the law a “backward step in the way we treat those fleeing persecution”, warning it will have a “catastrophic impact on their health and wellbeing”.

Lubna Shuja, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, warned the legislation was “unworkable”, would not solve problems with the asylum backlog, and threatened to “undermine the rule of law and access to justice”.

She said: “A growing number of people will be left in limbo as they cannot be removed, and they cannot claim asylum.

“The cost to the taxpayer will continue to increase as the individuals left in limbo are housed in various accommodation indefinitely.

“There is a severe lack of asylum and immigration solicitors to represent those who are subject to removal orders.”

The United Nations previously denounced the Bill, warning that it broke the UK’s obligations under international law.

Downing Street has defended the legislation, with officials saying the Government is confident it is acting within international law.

Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: “Today is an important step in the Government’s plan to stop the boats and put an end to dangerous, unnecessary and illegal journeys to the UK.

“Now that this piece of legislation has become law, we will be focused on the necessary next steps to ensure it can become operational, including by appealing to the Supreme Court in October regarding the safety of Rwanda for removal and asylum processing.”

Meanwhile, earlier this week, a barge which will house 500 asylum seekers was met by protesters as it arrived in Dorset’s Portland Port a month behind schedule. Two other cruise ships set to house migrants have reportedly been unable to find a berth.

The Home Office said around 50 asylum seekers would board the Bibby Stockholm from next week, with the numbers rising to its maximum capacity over coming months, despite safety concerns raised by some of the county’s Conservative MPs and locals.

The Government stood by its decision to use barges to house migrants, insisting it was a cheaper alternative to housing them in hotels.