LABOUR'S plan to hand asylum process decisions to the public has been described as "a reckless gamble with human lives" by a leading human rights charity.
Praxis, a charity fighting for migrant rights since 1983, has described the Home Secretary's new plans to have have trained members of the public decide asylum appeals instead of immigration judges.
This follows on from the Scottish Greens saying the legislation would further undermine the rights of people seeking asylum, and branding the upcoming bill as "dehumanising and cruel".
Shabana Mahmood will set out plans for a new independent body which officials say will prioritise cases in the public interest and high-harm offenders starting from late 2027 as part of her Immigration and Asylum Bill.
The Independent Immigration Appeals Authority will be made up of “professionally trained and independently appointed” adjudicators from a range of backgrounds, similar to magistrates.
However, Josephine Whitaker-Yilmaz who is head of advocacy at Praxis, argued that replacing experienced judges with unqualified adjudicators risks" increasing mistakes, creating more appeals and leaving even more people trapped in limbo".
Whitaker-Yilmaz further stated the move "fundamentally misunderstands the complexity of these cases and the devastating consequences of getting them wrong".
"Speed should never come at the expense of due process in cases carrying the weight of trauma, persecution and the risk of irreversible harm if the wrong decision is made," Whitaker-Yilmaz told The National.
"Pushing ahead with a new appeals body before the Government has even responded to its own public consultation also raises serious questions about whether those consultations were ever intended to shape policy in the first place."
Mahmood pledged the removal of 45,000 failed claimants and foreign offenders while announcing the plans, which also announcing plans to force asylum seekers to pay up to £10,000 towards the cost of their accommodation and support once they start earning.
Migrants need settled status, or indefinite leave to remain, to be able to permanently live, work, and study in the UK.
Under the plans, they must pay off the full amount before they can be eligible for settled status. Eligible adults will likely pay off an amount each month above a set threshold – similar to a student loan.
Whitaker-Yilmaz said: "For the people we work alongside, these proposals are devastating. They don't just punish people seeking safety – they redefine protection as something that must be paid for and earned, rather than a fundamental human right.
"Burdening refugees with debt at the moment they can finally start rebuilding their lives will deepen inequality and hamper integration. Combined with new barriers to family reunion and justice, these measures will leave more families separated, more people unable to challenge incorrect decisions, and more refugees forced to rebuild their lives under the burden of debt.
"This is not an asylum system built on fairness, justice or compassion – it is one designed to make protection and stability harder to access at every turn."
Dr Madeleine Sumption, director of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, said it was likely that only a relatively small share of people granted asylum would actually earn enough to pay towards the scheme.
It could also discourage asylum seekers from working once they get refugee status to avoid the cost, she said.
“The data suggests that unless thresholds were significantly below the minimum wage, a relatively small share of people granted asylum would earn enough to make contributions to the scheme,” she continued.
“The impact of the scheme on public finances is likely to be relatively small, because it is a means-tested payment for a very low-income population.
“It is possible that the scheme could have some other impacts, such as discouraging asylum seekers from taking up accommodation if they can find other support (such as family members or a charity), or discouraging them from working once they get refugee status because they face a higher effective tax rate.
“In practice, it is hard to predict how large either effect might be.
“How the proposed flat rate £10,000 repayment compares to the actual cost of asylum support will depend a lot on how long people wait for a final asylum decision and what share are in hotels.
“For example, the cost of supporting person who waits for a year in a hotel would be over £50,000, while the cost for someone in much cheaper HMO (house in multiple occupation) accommodation who only waits six months would be under £6000.”
The Scottish Greens' justice spokesperson Maggie Chapman has called Andy Burnham to remove Mahmood should he become the country's next prime minister.
“If Andy Burnham is to chart a new course then it can’t be done with her still in office. She has already caused enough misery," Chapman said.
“This latest announcement is a clear attempt to make the system even harsher and more hostile.
"Yet we know that immigrants contribute so much to our society and our communities. Instead of locking people up in prison-like conditions and disempowering judges we should be giving people the right to work and build lives here.”
