Albanian Channel migrants could be banned from hiding behind modern slavery laws

A ban on Albanians claiming protection under the Modern Slavery Act could be brought in to tackle the Channel migrants crisis.

Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, is said to support plans outlined in a major report by Nick Timothy, Theresa May’s former aide, published on Monday.

The paper, written for the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) think tank, states that modern slavery laws - brought in by Mrs May when she was home secretary - are being “unscrupulously abused” by Albanians.

It suggests that, to tackle the problem, whole nationalities of claimants should be excluded from the scheme “where it is clear that there is widespread and organised abuse of the law”.

The report states: “Modern slavery laws are unscrupulously abused. While this has been happening on a small scale for years, it has now become standard advice to illegal immigrants from Albania to claim to be victims of trafficking.

“Indeed, modern slavery legislation has become the first line of defence for many illegal immigrants, with the ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights] as their fallback position.”

It adds: “An internal Home Office review of modern slavery … is already under way, but legislation will certainly be required to tighten criteria and raise the evidential threshold for making a claim under the Act.

“We should also look at streamlining the decision-making process and reducing bureaucracy … and introducing exclusions for whole nationalities of claimants where it is clear that there is widespread and organised abuse of the law.”

In the most recent quarter to September, there were 4,586 modern slavery claims - a 10 per cent rise on the preceding quarter.

It means the UK is heading for 16,000 claims this year, compared with 3,805 potential victims submitted to the National Referral Mechanism in 2016.

The most common nationality referred was Albanian, which accounted for 28 per cent - 1,294 - of all potential victims. The number of Albanian nationals has surpassed UK nationals for the third consecutive quarter.

While Ms Braverman has said she does not agree with everything in the think tank’s report, she is understood to be in favour of rewriting modern slavery laws.

Under the Modern Slavery Act, people can claim the right to live in the UK if they can show they are a victim of exploitation or trafficking.

It is an entirely different process to that used by people seeking asylum, who have to show they are fleeing war or persecution.

At the weekend Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, indicated that barring people from safe countries such as Albania - from where there has been a recent upsurge in arrivals - from claiming asylum was among measures being considered.

Call for overhaul of human rights laws

The CPS report, co-written by Mr Timothy, also calls for new laws barring migrants who enter illegally from ever settling in the UK.

It recommends that ministers should legislate to make it impossible to claim asylum in the UK after travelling from a safe country.

It calls for the overhaul of human rights laws - with the UK "if necessary" withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights - to allow detentions and offshoring the processing of asylum claims.

And it states that ministers should be looking for deals with other countries to supplement the currently stalled plan to deport migrants to Rwanda for processing.

The report also raises the issue that the points based immigration system introduced after Brexit has increased legal migration.

It states: "Just as Australia’s points-based system was designed to increase immigration, so too was the new British one – but without, as the Channel crossings show, the quid pro quo of border control."

Mr Timothy was an aide to Mrs May when she brought in the Modern Slavery Act in 2015 to crack down on people trafficking - but he is now critical of the same legislation.

In a foreword to the report, the Home Secretary pledges to do "whatever it takes" to deal with the migrant crisis in the Channel.

“While I do not agree with everything in this report, I welcome it as a vital and necessary contribution to the policy debate about what can be done to tackle the crossings,” she says.

Despite the disclaimer, her contribution will be seen as an indication that she is sympathetic to the thinking behind it.

There were 72,027 asylum applications - relating to 85,902 people - in the UK in the year ending Sept 2022. The previous peak was 84,132 applications in 2002.

Of these, 13,650 applications were from Albanians - a 225 per cent increase from 4,206 in the previous year to Sept 2021.

In the first half of 2022, 55 per cent of adult Albanian applicants were successful at the initial decision. Of all the positive decisions on adult Albanians’ asylum applications in the year ending June 30 2022, 86 per cent were for women and 14 per cent for men.

The Telegraph understands that legislation will be brought forward in the new year to make it easier to refuse asylum applications from safe countries.

At present, the law states that where a person comes from a country on the “white list” of safe countries, an official from the Home Office must certify a claim unless satisfied that it clearly has merit.

The Government is going to change the law to state that where a person comes from a white list country, there will be automatic refusal. People will be immediately detained pending removal.

The white list, drawn up in 2002, includes Ukraine.

Leading churchman backs offshoring of asylum seekers

One of Britain’s leading churchmen has backed the Government’s offshoring of asylum-seekers in Rwanda.

Dr Michael Nazir Ali, the former Anglican bishop of Rochester who has since joined the Catholic church, said the case for offshoring migrants who arrived illegally in the UK was “strong” because of the problems in removing them once they reached the UK across the Channel.

Citing the Australian Sovereign Borders operation to place its illegal migrants in Nauru and other islands, he said the policy had succeeded in deterring asylum seekers from making such dangerous sea journeys.

He said the Government’s plan to send Channel migrants to Rwanda where they would claim asylum was therefore one way of dealing with the surge in people crossing the Channel especially since they had arrived in the UK after travelling through at least one safe country.

“If people smugglers can simply nullify carefully thought-through and debated legislation and policy by landing people in small craft on the beaches in Kent, this cannot indefinitely be acceptable in a democratic and

law-respecting nation,” he said.

He said the Government needed to ensure asylum seekers were treated humanely in Rwanda and suggested it should be open to accepting the return to the UK of some asylum seekers from Rwanda if their claims to come to Britain were upheld.

Dr Nazir Ali’s comments contrast with criticism of the policy by other church leaders and come in a report by the right-of-centre think tank Policy Exchange analysis on the morality of asylum.

This week the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Rt Rev Justin Welby, is convening a debate in the Lords which is expected to be critical of the Government’s Rwanda policy. Earlier this year, the said said it did not “stand the judgement of God.”

However, Dr Nazir Ali said the fact that most of those arriving in the UK on small boats had come via at least one safe country meant they were not refugees in the conventional sense.

Some may, indeed, have experienced torture and imprisonment but they were in no such danger in France or Belgium, which are prevented by international law from sending them back into danger.

“Many, however, are younger men whose parents may be helping them to evade conscription in countries

like Iran or Syria or they may just be economic migrants, seeking a better life in the UK and possibly linking up with relatives or colleagues already here.

“The people smugglers who make these dangerous journeys possible don’t just organise the trip, they also connive in destroying identity papers, sometimes in creating stories of persecution and torture and, most

recently, in claims that the arrivals are victims of human trafficking and thus eligible for asylum.”

He said that whatever their reasons for attempted migration, churches and humanitarian organisations were morally obliged to assist these arrivals in their material, social and spiritual needs “on the basis that we are called to love the stranger.”

“This is not the same thing, however, as government policy itself which must take account of many

different factors, including the impact of large-scale immigration on social cohesion, on social, educational and medical services and on physical infrastructure, such as roads and railways.

“When churches exercise their right, indeed their duty, to contribute, in an informed way, to the debate

about immigration, any government should consider such contributions with the seriousness they deserve, and should do so the more the churches’ contributions have taken seriously those wider responsibilities to everyone on whom attempted migration impacts.

“Governments should not be easily demonised, though they can and should be criticised for their policies and the scope of such policies, but if people smugglers can simply nullify carefully thought-through and debated legislation and policy by landing people in small craft on the beaches in Kent, this cannot indefinitely be acceptable in a democratic and law respecting nation.

“Such illegal immigration puts pressure on the state to narrow the scope for legal immigration, needed

to staff essential services, such as the NHS, or to provide talent and labour for a whole range of business and industry. It also puts on pressure to further restrict family-related immigration, and, indeed, genuine refugees

allocated to the UK by the UNHCR and other international organisations.

“Although the Australian experience is open to criticism, it has had the effect of deterring people from making the dangerous journey across the seas. The case for off-shore processing of those arriving here illegally is strong because of the difficulties in removing people, once they are here.

“The proposal to send illegal immigrants to Rwanda for the processing of their claims is one way of dealing with the situation. That country has rebuilt itself since the terrible genocide there and, although some human

rights concerns remain, it seems to be a relatively stable and prospering place.

“Those found to have a valid claim as refugees could remain there. If the UNHCR, which appears so concerned about their plight, can get third countries to accept them, as it has done with some of those sent by Australia to Papua New Guinea and Nauru, that also would be good outcome.

“For its part, the UK must ensure that those sent from here are treated humanely and justly and that they are never returned to where they may be in danger (though they may return voluntarily to their home countries, of course). For my part, I do not discount the possibility of some claims to settle in the UK being upheld during assessment in Rwanda or elsewhere.

“The government should also consider mechanisms which allow it to assess claims of asylum for those persecuted for their beliefs on the recommendation of duly accredited human rights organisations in this country.

“There is a need for a new international agreement on refugees and asylum seekers. Europe and the UK do not have a monopoly on the moral obligation to help refugees in need of settlement. Other, wealthier nations,

should also take their due share, including some in the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, given that many asylum seekers are coming from their member states.”