The much disputed Nationality and Borders Act, which passed into UK law in April, has been condemned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) as being “fundamentally at odds with the Government’s avowed commitment to upholding the United Kingdom’s international obligations under the Refugee Convention and with the country’s long-standing role as a global champion for the refugee cause.”

Others who also condemned the earlier Bill and Act to which it has given rise are as follows.

The Refugee Council called it “cruel legislation that will undoubtedly cause harm” and go on say “We know the British public want an asylum system that is fair, orderly and humane – this is evident from the outpouring of welcome shown to people fleeing Ukraine and Afghanistan. The Government is out of step with the people, and through this harmful Act is demonstrates its prioritisation of control over compassion and competence.”

The Anti Slavery Commissioner wrote a letter to Priti Patel, the Home Secretary responsible for the Bill upon which the Act is based, which highlighted “the potential for the legislation to make the identification of modern slavery victims harder. It raises concerns that the proposals will increase vulnerability to trafficking but may not deter migrants from putting themselves in the hands of the smugglers and traffickers. Finally, it warns that the proposal that those sentenced to twelve months or more in prison should not receive support within the National Referral Mechanism could significantly undermine the ability to bring traffickers to justice.”

A comprehensive joint legal opinion by four barristers, commissioned by Freedom from Torture, found the Bill was the “biggest ever legal assault on international refugee law by the UK” and would breach the Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants wrote that “These plans are inhumane and farcical. Offshore detention centres are places of cruelty and neglect – they should have absolutely NO place in our asylum system.”

After Exploitation wrote that “Survivors of slavery are being discouraged from reporting abuse through a series of cuts to support made by the UK Government. Through Part 5 of the Nationality and Borders Act, passed this year, survivors of human trafficking are only allowed support where the Home Office decides it is ‘necessary’. Judges and decision makers will also be forced to penalise victims who do not disclose abuse ‘quickly enough’.”

Zara Sultana, Labour MP for Coventry South, wrote that it “criminalises boats rescuing people at sea and attacks refugee rights, violating our 70-year commitment to the Refugee Convention.”

Matt Western, Labour MP for Warwick and Leamington, wrote to UN Association Warwick District that “The legal system offers asylum seekers little to no support, despite their already fragile and precarious position. That cannot be a satisfactory state of affairs. I contend that [the Act] only serves to entrench that paradox of precarity. While an account of the traumas faced by those who have fled their homeland for fear of persecution is best left to those who have first-hand experience, we cannot overstate the pain, suffering and disorientation faced by many of those who arrive on our shores.

“The Act does nothing to tackle the 12,000-long queue of Afghan refugees and 25,000 asylum seekers who are currently being accommodated in hotels, accommodation which does not meet their needs and which does not provide the security and certainty that these vulnerable individuals need if they are to start to process the trauma they endured before reaching the UK.

“That the British taxpayer is paying £4.7 million per day for hotel accommodation, when prompt and efficient processing of the applications for Leave to Remain would mean that those refugees and asylum seekers affected by the backlog could secure employment and accommodation that better meets their needs at a substantially lower cost to the state, and a substantially lower emotional cost to those individuals affected by the backlog, should be a matter of shame for the Government.

“The Act tried to legitimise what unworkable, cruel and inhumane solutions that will waste taxpayer money and undermine international humanitarian undertakings at a time when cooperation and cohesion is needed more than ever.”