THE majority of people who took part in the UK Government’s consultation on sweeping asylum reforms opposed “many of the policies”, according to the Home Office.
Around three-quarters of those who took part in the survey on Home Secretary Priti Patel’s new plan for immigration disagreed with a lot of the ideas.
But the process showed there is “some support for these broad ambitions, more so from members of the public”, according to her department.
Patel’s pledge for a “fair but firm” system, brought forward earlier this month under the Government’s Nationality and Borders Bill, intends to make it a criminal offence to knowingly arrive in the UK without permission, with tougher sentences for those found doing so and for people smugglers.
READ MORE: Why Priti Patel’s latest wheeze is just hot air and nasty changes
It means, for the first time, how someone enters the UK – legally or “illegally” – will affect the progress of their asylum claim and their status in the UK, if their bid is successful.
Dubbed the anti-refugee bill by campaigners critical of the plans, the proposed laws could see Border Force officers given powers to turn back migrants at sea.
The SNP said the bill showed the Tories had "zero compassion" for refugees.
Stuart McDonald MP accused Patel of defending "criminalising" refugees fleeing war and persecution.
The bill contains provisions to set up offshore processing centres which could see asylum seekers sent away from the UK while their claims are determined, giving rise to reports of plans to share a site with Denmark in Rwanda and reviving speculation over suggestions Ascension Island could be sought as another destination.
The Home Office insists the changes will “prioritise those most in need of protection while stopping the abuse of the system”.
The consultation, launched in March after the Government announced the plan, saw 8590 responses to an online questionnaire, including 7399 people who identified themselves as members of the public and 1191 who identified themselves as “stakeholders”, including campaign groups.
A document detailing the Government’s response to the findings of the survey, published today, said the process was “extensive and wide-reaching”.
Some critics had previously claimed it was “sham” consultation.
“The consultation has shown that there is some support for these broad ambitions, more so from members of the public. However, the responses sent into the Government consultation also show that around three quarters of those who responded said they opposed many of the policies set out in the New Plan for Immigration. A similar view was also taken by those with direct experience of the asylum system,” the document said.
The Government “recognises that building a system that is fair but firm will require tough decisions, some of which may be unpopular with certain individuals and/or groups” and had “listened to the concerns raised”.
“However, the pressures of the current system cannot be ignored, requiring urgent and decisive action”, it added.
The Government “will continue to listen, engage and work with stakeholders as it overhauls the current system”, the document promised.
Some points raised in the consultation will “require closer consideration as part of any further policy implementation and operational planning”, it said, including a “general lack of detail and explanation of the policies, and an evidence base for these”, and the “fairness’ elements of the new plan “not being sufficient or balanced”, when set against the “firm” elements.
Other points include the potential for the plan to “contribute to greater inefficiencies in the system" and added there is a need to “mitigate against any potential unintended consequences” and “adjust safeguards and protections in the system to support those who may be vulnerable”.
READ MORE: Napier Barracks: Priti Patel defends 'irresponsible' accommodation for refugees
The Home Office stressed the responses “cannot be viewed as being representative of all stakeholders and the public population as a whole”, adding: “Instead, the consultation and its findings represent the opinions of those who have chosen to respond.”
The results were “carefully considered before relevant policy decisions were finalised and ahead of the introduction of the Nationality and Borders Bill in Parliament”, it added.
The Nationality and Borders Bill passed its second reading in the Commons on Tuesday evening by 366 votes to 265.
It was described by the SNP as "abhorrent" while the Scottish Refugee Council said the proposals presented the biggest threat to refugee rights in the UK for decades.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel