Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Chris Philp Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House, while welcoming measures to create new immigration criminal offences, declines to give a Second Reading to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, because an effective removals and deterrence arrangement is fundamental to stopping illegal immigration, but the Bill abolishes laws passed under the previous Government to ensure removals, and abolishes laws passed under the previous Government to ensure a deterrent by restoring illegal migrants’ ability to claim indefinite leave to remain and British citizenship; and because the Bill contains no proposals to limit legal migration, nor limit the eligibility criteria for settlement and citizenship, which means that the Bill will lead to increased illegal and legal immigration.”

It has been seven months since the Government came to office, so we have had a chance to look at their record. I am afraid it does not make for happy reading. Since the general election on 4 July, 24,793 people have illegally, dangerously and unnecessarily crossed the English channel. That is a 28% increase on the same period 12 months previously. The Home Secretary tells us how good her Government’s record is, yet illegal crossings have gone up by 28% on her watch. She promised that she would end the use of asylum hotels. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) asked her when she would deliver on that manifesto commitment, and she did not answer the question. The truth is that, after the election, there were 6,000 more people in asylum hotels: a failure on her watch.

The Home Secretary crows about removal numbers, not mentioning of course that three quarters of those removals were voluntary, and only a tiny fraction relate to people who arrived by small boat. In the first three months of this Government, the number of people who were removed having arrived by small boat actually went down. In fact, the removals of small boat arrivals in those first three months—the most recent period for which figures are available—amount to only 4% of small boat arrivals, so how can she tell us that letting 96% of illegal immigrants stay here is some kind of deterrent? It is not.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

The shadow Home Secretary seems keen to reflect on the records of Governments. In 2010, the number of people in the asylum system reached an over-20-year low. By the time the Conservative Government had left office, the number had ballooned by 13 times to 225,000. Will he reflect on who was responsible for that?

[Chris Philp]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman knows which Government gave an effective asylum amnesty; it was the previous Labour Government. If he is so interested in the asylum backlog, does he know whether it has gone up or down under the new Government? It has gone up, as has the number of illegal migrants crossing the channel, leaving a safe country—France—from which there is no necessity to depart in order to find safety. France has a fully functioning asylum system, does it not?

[Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)]

In 2018, 400 people crossed. On the Conservative Government’s watch, 130,000 people crossed the border. Will the shadow Home Secretary apologise?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman is obviously not aware that in 2023 the numbers were going down. Since his Government came to office on 4 July last year, the number has gone up by 28%.

[Sammy Wilson]

The shadow Home Secretary notes that the number of asylum claims has gone up since the Government came to power, yet thousands have been wiped off because those people have been automatically given permission to stay in the United Kingdom. Does he not think that one reason we will continue to see people flooding in is that they know we are an easy touch? They can just come here and get granted asylum.

[Chris Philp]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The asylum grant rate in this country has gone up in recent months, and is high in comparison with some other European countries. That is obviously a potential pull factor for people considering a dangerous and unnecessary crossing of the English channel.

Let me say a word about the Bill in general before discussing its specifics. The Bill cancels the obligation on the Government to remove people who have arrived illegally. That is a shocking move. It creates a pathway to citizenship for people who have entered the country illegally, which will only increase the pull factor, and completely cancels any prospect of establishing a removals deterrent, which the National Crime Agency says is necessary.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

How many people were removed under the previous Government’s so-called deterrent?

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the deterrent never even started. The first flight—[Interruption.] The first flight was due to take off on 24 July, but his Government cancelled the deterrent before it had even started. That was their mistake, and as a result illegal crossings have gone up by 28%. This is not a border security Bill, given the measures that I have mentioned; it is a border surrender Bill. It is a weak bill from a weak Government.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I was in opposition when we had ferocious debates about Brexit, and Conservative Members used words like “surrender”, “traitors” and “weak”. The shadow Home Secretary is now doing the same in opposition. Does he honestly believe that such language is conducive to getting to a solution? Does he think that it makes any person in this House feel better about themselves? Does he think that it gives him the moral high ground? I think it exposes his inability to conduct an argument in a way that is vaguely civil.

[Chris Philp]

I think a Bill that creates a path to citizenship for illegal migrants and cancels the obligation on the Government to remove people who arrive illegally is a shocking piece of legislation. That is why we tabled a reasoned amendment.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the shadow Home Secretary give way?

[Chris Philp]

I have given way a lot. Let me make some progress.

The Home Secretary asked about the Opposition’s position on various topics. Our reasoned amendment makes it clear that we support measures to increase criminal penalties and to legislate against articles for use in serious and organised crime—measures that we introduced as part of the Criminal Justice Bill last year—but we do not support a path to citizenship for people who arrive illegally, and we do not support cancelling the Government’s obligation to remove them. That is why I moved the reasoned amendment.

[Yvette Cooper]

Perhaps the shadow Home Secretary can confirm that the measure in the Illegal Migration Act on citizenship was never commenced because it was unworkable. The Government have strengthened the powers to ensure that small boat arrivals cannot get citizenship by strengthening the rules. We have done more in seven months than the Conservative party did in 14 years. If he really wants to support counter-terrorism-style powers, why is he going to vote against the Bill on Second Reading?

[Chris Philp]

The reasoned amendment makes it very clear that we support those powers, but we do not support the totality of the Bill. In terms of tough action, the Home Secretary has yet to explain to the House why illegal crossings have gone up by 28% on her watch.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Home Secretary give way?

[Chris Philp]

I will make some progress.

Let me turn to the detail of the Bill. The only problem with the Border Security Commander is that he cannot actually command anything. There are no powers at all in the Bill, merely functions. They include, in clause 3, publishing a strategic priority document and, in clause 4, a duty to prepare an annual report. Preparing a strategic priority document and publishing an annual report are unlikely to smash the gangs. The Border Security Commander has no clear powers, merely an ability to publish documents and reports.

[Tom Hayes]

Will the shadow Home Secretary give way?

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman has been extremely persistent, and that deserves its reward.

[Tom Hayes]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for the reward, and I hope to return one. The director general of the NCA has said:

“The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill should help UK law enforcement act earlier and faster to disrupt people smuggling networks and give us additional tools to target them and their business models.”

The Conservative party is about to vote against the Bill. Why does the shadow Home Secretary think that he knows better than the director general of the National Crime Agency?

[Chris Philp]

The point of a debate is to engage rather than read out a pre-prepared question. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the National Crime Agency has said that we need a deterrent. The Bill removes any legislative prospect of a deterrent, which is why we oppose it.

The Home Secretary talked about various new offences, including endangering life at sea and activities preparatory to supporting illegal migration. Of course, no one from any party in this House wants those things to happen, but the measures that she proposes duplicate the existing provisions in section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971, as amended by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. Facilitating illegal immigration—quite a broad term—is already a criminal offence. Unlike her offence of endangering life at sea, which carries a five-year maximum sentence, section 25 of the Immigration Act states that facilitating illegal migration carries a maximum sentence of life, recently increased from 14 years. Guess who voted against that increase in the sentence? The Home Secretary.

Although we support the thrust of the clauses in the Bill, they are already covered by the tougher existing offence of facilitating illegal immigration. Clauses 19 to 26 contain plans to seize phones, which in principle we support, but that power exists already in section 15 and schedule 2 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. There is an element of duplication.

Let me move on to the more objectionable parts of the Bill. Clause 37 repeals the entirety of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That appears to command some rather unwise enthusiasm from the Government Benches. As I said, the first flight under the Rwanda scheme was due to leave on 24 July, following extensive legal challenge and legislation in this House. Very unwisely, the Government chose never to start that scheme, which would have had a deterrent effect, because it stands to reason that if people know that if they try to cross illegally into a country such as the UK they will be removed to Rwanda, they will not bother in the first place.

We have seen that kind of scheme work elsewhere, with Operation Sovereign Borders in Australia around 10 years ago. We have seen it work here as well, with the 2023 removals agreement with Albania. Crossings by Albanians, who were the most numerous cohort crossing the channel, went down by 93%. Again, it stands to reason that if people know that if they arrive here they will be removed, they will not bother crossing in the first place. But hon. Members should not take my word for it. The National Crime Agency says that we need a deterrent, and even the Government’s own Border Security Commander, Martin Hewitt—who cannot command very much—says that we need a deterrent.

[Mr Brash]

That is the second time the shadow Home Secretary has said that the National Crime Agency has suggested that Rwanda would be a deterrent. The head of the National Crime Agency has said specifically, “Others are implying that we support Rwanda, and that isn’t true.” Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw that?

[Chris Philp]

No, what the National Crime Agency said was that we need a deterrent. That is what it said, that is what I quoted, and the Government’s own Border Security Commander made the same point.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Last year, as part of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I visited Rwanda to see the accommodation at Hope hostel that was to be provided to people who were moved under the Rwanda scheme. I learned from that visit that, yes, people would have been deterred from going across the channel, but that migrants who were sent to Rwanda would have been well looked after, well cared for and able to set up a new life, free from the war and famine that they were fleeing.

[Chris Philp]

I thank my hon. Friend for taking the time and trouble to visit Rwanda, which almost no supporter of the Bill has ever bothered doing. It is clear that the Rwanda scheme would have had a deterrent effect, had the Government allowed it to start. The National Crime Agency has said that, and we have seen it work in Australia. The fact that this Government are removing only 4% of people who cross by small boat—meaning that 96% are able to stay—explains why so many more people have crossed the channel under this Government than under the previous regime.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Can the right hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members look themselves in the mirror, with a hand on their heart, and say in good conscience that for a great nation like ours—a country that believes in the international rule of law—to outsource its asylum policy to a country like Rwanda is the correct way to behave? Can he really say that that is the right policy for this country?

[Chris Philp]

The right policy for this country is for the Government, not people smugglers, to decide who comes into this country. Unlike this Government, we have a plan to deliver that. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that France is a safe country. There is no need to cross the English channel to flee war or seek asylum. France has a perfectly well-functioning asylum system.

When it comes to people who are genuinely in need, this country has a proud record. The Home Secretary referred—rather generously, I might say—to initiatives undertaken by the last Government. They include the Ukraine scheme, which allowed in 200,000 or 300,000 people; the resettlement scheme that welcomed around 25,000 Syrians from about 2015 to 2020; the provisions made for British nationals overseas who came here from Hong Kong, and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme and Afghan relocations and assistance policy. That is the record of this country, and of the previous Government, on people who are in genuine need. But people—overwhelmingly single young men—leaving France, conveyed here by people smugglers, are not the people whose entry we should be facilitating.

Let me move on to the Bill’s provisions to repeal much of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. One such provision to be repealed, therefore depriving the Government of the ability ever to use it, is section 2, which created an obligation on the Government to remove people who come here illegally. Let me point out to those people who are concerned about genuine asylum seekers that section 2(4) of the 2023 Act makes it clear that the provision does not apply if someone comes directly from a place of danger. That is consistent with article 33 of the 1951 refugee convention, which Members will be familiar with. But people who come here directly from France—a safe country where no one is being persecuted, which has a perfectly well-functioning asylum system—should not illegally enter the United Kingdom.

The Bill will also repeal section 32 of the 2023 Act, which prevents people who enter the country illegally from gaining citizenship. By repealing that section, the Bill will create a pathway to citizenship for people who entered the country illegally, and I think that is unconscionable.

The Bill will also repeal sections 57 and 58 of the 2023 Act —a topic on which the Minister for Border Security and Asylum and I have had some correspondence—which concern scientific age assessment methods. Every European country apart from this one uses scientific age assessment techniques, such as an X-ray of the wrist, although there are other methods. That is important because quite a few people entering the country illegally who might be in their early or even mid-20s falsely claim to be under the age of 18, and without a scientific age assessment method it is very hard to determine their age. That creates serious safeguarding issues. There have been cases of men in their mid-20s ending up in schools with teenage girls, which carries obvious safeguarding risks.

A statutory instrument passed in early 2024—quite soon before the election—commenced the power to use those age assessment techniques. I really hope the new Government will use those powers and start using wrist X-rays, or other techniques, to ensure that people cannot falsely claim to be under 18. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update on that in her winding-up speech, because we would certainly support her work in that area. As I say, there is an important safeguarding element to this matter, as well as a migration element. I note that in repealing section 57 of the 2023 Act, the Government will no longer be able to treat as over 18 somebody who refuses one of those tests. There are some predating provisions in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, but the provision being repealed is stronger, and in the circumstances that may be rather unwise.

There are various things missing from the Bill. We will table various amendments during its passage that will seek to introduce much stronger measures, but I want to point to two in particular now. The first addresses the fact that there is no mechanism in the Bill for a binding annual cap on legal migration.

[Peter Swallow]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Chris Philp]

No—I have taken lots of interventions.

I think we can all agree that numbers in recent years have been far too high, and what is needed is a binding cap that Parliament can vote on, so that it can decide how many visas are issued each year. I believe the Prime Minister was asked about that and said he did not agree with it, but I think the Bill is an ideal opportunity to create that power for Parliament—for us, the directly elected representatives of the people—to vote each year on how many visas get handed out. Perhaps the Minister for Border Security and Asylum will execute a considered U-turn and embrace the suggestion I have just made.

On the topic of legal migration, the previous Government —in fact, I think it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), the former Home Secretary, who is in his place—announced an increase to the threshold for dependant visas. It went up somewhat in April last year, and it was due to go up again this April to about £38,000. I would be grateful if the Government could clarify whether they will go ahead with that plan, which would, of course, control some of the numbers.

The second area that requires further legislation is indefinite leave to remain, which the Leader of the Opposition and I spoke about last week. Indefinite leave to remain, as the name implies, confers an indefinite right to reside in the UK and provides a number of privileges, including access to full benefits, social housing and pension rights. It is the Opposition’s view that it should be granted only if a person, having come here for work purposes, has made a genuine contribution—if they have earned more than they have paid in taxes, which we could measure by reference to a salary threshold. If, after someone comes to the UK to work, it turns out they have not worked and have become a burden on the taxpayer, or have worked for a very low level of wages, implying they are not making a net contribution, it strikes us as fair that they should not be granted indefinite leave to remain and that their visa should not be renewed.

Last September, the Office for Budget Responsibility published an analysis showing that migrants on low wages carry a lifetime fiscal cost to the rest of the taxpayers of £500,000. The Centre for Policy Studies recently published an analysis showing that the fiscal cost of those who might be granted ILR in the next four or five years will amount to £234 billion over their lifetime. We do not think it is reasonable for taxpayers to bear so high a cost for people who have arrived only relatively recently and have not made a significant contribution, so we will be tabling amendments to ensure that only those coming here on work visas who have actually made a contribution will be eligible for indefinite leave to remain. I would be grateful to know whether the Minister for Border Security and Asylum will support that measure.

The Government have presided over 25,000 illegal crossings since they came into office—a 28% increase on the same period 12 months ago—and have failed to remove 96% of the people who have crossed the channel. They scrapped the Rwanda deterrent before it even started, even though the National Crime Agency and their own Border Security Commander said that a deterrent is needed and we have seen it work in Australia. The Bill will cancel the Government’s obligation to remove people who have come here illegally, and we see the Government creating a path to citizenship for illegal migrants. This is a weak Bill from a weak Government, and that is why we will oppose it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]