Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Jo White Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Some of us have run a real business. I had to drive trucks across the channel, and I still remember the Calais-to-Dover border crossings, with dogs sent in to sniff out human trafficking and groups of men at every service station on the road to Calais. My fear that my lorry might be hijacked by someone attempting to enter our country illegally very much reflected the confusion and anger expressed by my constituents in Bassetlaw. That is why they sent me to Parliament to be their loud voice, to monitor and to push for tough action to boost border security and to sort this problem out.

We now have a Border Security Commander in Martin Hewitt, who was appointed in the first days following the general election. His job is to bring back control of our borders, smash the gangs and stop the flow of illegal migrants. Under the previous Government, £700 million of taxpayers’ money was wasted on the failed Rwanda scheme, 84,000 crossed the channel in rubber dinghies, asylum decision making collapsed, and the cost of asylum hotels stacked up to £6 million a week.

With this Government, we are getting results: the highest number of returns since 2018, with close to 19,000 individuals having been flown out of our country; nearly 3,000 foreign criminals removed; deals around the world, including with Iraq, to break up those at the centre of the organised smuggling gangs; proper dialogue with our G7 partners as we start to work in step on this issue; agreement with the German authorities to arrest and imprison anyone caught facilitating the trafficking of illegal migrants; and, just last month, 828 raids on businesses, including the nail bars and car washes where people are brought to work in slave labour conditions. But we need power to take more action, and the Bill will enshrine the Border Security Command in law, enabling the co-ordination of law enforcement agencies with the sole focus of taking back control of our borders.

We must make the English channel a no-go area for the criminal gangs by effectively targeting them; disrupting their activities through the seizure of electronic devices, including mobile phones; restricting their activities by maximising the impact of serious crime prevention orders and giving law enforcement the power to monitor and intervene; and arresting and jailing them, with new offences that will mean that those selling or handling small boat parts for use in the channel face up to 14 years in prison. The Bill will make it a criminal offence to endanger life. My thoughts today are with those children too young to make a choice who were lost by drowning.

There can be no hiding places. Where lorry drivers are bringing people in, there will be a new 14-year jail term for vehicle concealment. My message to the Government is: crack on with the job, give us a running commentary of every success, publicise the return flights and the jailing of criminals, clear up the Conservatives’ mess, secure our borders, close down the use of hotels and stop the small boats.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (First sitting)

Jo White Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Chris Murray]

It was about the impact on local communities of the dysfunction created by the Illegal Migration Act and the Rwanda Act, and how much you attribute that dysfunction—especially the growing use of hotels for asylum seekers—to those Acts, which we are proposing to repeal.

Mubeen Bhutta: I probably do not have a huge amount more to add to what Enver just said, but it goes back to what was said earlier about the speed of decision making, the time that people are left in accommodation, the suitability of that accommodation, the impact on their wellbeing—certainly in terms of what we three see through our services—and the need for a comprehensive strategy. It comes back to what we said at the beginning about what is in the Bill, and what needs to go alongside it that is not in the Bill, around integration.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Q How might the new offences impact individuals and organisations such as charities or non-governmental organisations that provide support to migrants? For example, if a Vietnamese woman who works in a nail bar comes to one of your services, what mechanisms do you have in place to investigate and report any illegal working?

Mubeen Bhutta: We do not fully know what the impact of that new offence will be, because it is not enforced yet. It is helpful to see that there is provision in the drafting around charities and their role, but it is not certain how that will play out. Our concern is also that new offences could impact the overall aims around the focus on seeking protection. It could influence behaviour or the ways that people offer support if there is concern that they might be caught.

Daniel O'Malley: On the point about the new offences and the deterrent aspect on human traffickers and smuggling gangs, there are aspects of the Illegal Migration Act that have not been repealed that apply to human trafficking. For example, a provision about disqualification from human trafficking protection in section 29 of the IMA has been kept. We would like to see that removed because an individual who has been in a nail bar and might have been human trafficked, as tends to be the case, might not come to any services due to fear of being disqualified from human trafficking protection because they may have engaged in criminal activity. If you have been human trafficked, you are likely to have engaged in criminal activity by virtue of that. That is the problem with the aspects of the Illegal Migration and Nationality and Borders Acts that have been left in.

The Nationality and Borders Act still contains section 60, which raised the threshold for referral to the national referral mechanism. Someone from a legal organisation in Scotland said that before the Nationality and Borders Act—he had been a lawyer for a couple of years by then—he had done one judicial review on the national referral mechanism. Since the Nationality and Borders and Illegal Migration Acts, he has done more than 50 judicial reviews. That keeps in the Act a freezing factor. Gangs and human traffickers can scare people who have been human trafficked by saying, “You might not get this protection because these offences could be applied or your protection could be taken away.” That is the aspect we would like to see removed to make sure that any offences are not disproportionately affecting victims of human trafficking.

[The Chair]

The next question will be the last. Witnesses, if there is anything that you have not yet said but would like to say, please do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We have only two minutes left, and three questions to go.

[Jo White]

Q I will be quick. Thank you for the work that you do. My biggest concern is those children who come into the UK who we do not even know are coming in, because it is hidden. They are clearly victims of modern slavery or child sexual exploitation. It is important, as you said just now, that we stop the gangs that are bringing them across. How confident are you that the new Border Security Commander with his anti-terrorism powers will be able to track those gangs down and smash them?

Dame Rachel de Souza: That is the first question I asked the National Crime Agency when I came into the role. I asked, “Could you find every child in this country?” I was told that, “With enough resource, we could pretty much do it, apart from some of the Vietnamese children who are trafficked into cannabis factories and things like that.” With resource, and with this new Border Security Command, we will get a lot nearer, and we need to do that.

[Tom Hayes]

Q Thank you for all of your work. In April 2023, you wrote to the then Home Secretary requesting information about children accommodated in hotels. Seven months later, when you received the information, you then said that it was seven months past your deadline and that the quality of the information itself was deeply troubling. Can you comment on how difficult or easy it was for you to discharge your statutory duties as Children’s Commissioner when working with the last Government to safeguard children?

Dame Rachel de Souza: The Home Office was the only Department that failed to answer my data request in time and that gave me imperfect data, but I did not stop and I kept going. I have to say: it is much better now. I was able to speak to and did have access to Ministers, and I was always able to make my case. I did not get that information in a timely manner, but I did get that information in the end. I am worried about what has happened to those children.

The data we were after was safeguarding data that showed all the concerns, and the reason I asked for it was because I knew that the safeguarding in the hotels was not as it should be. We got the data on children who had been victims of attempted organ harvesting, rape and various other things, as well as the number of children who were missing. We still do not know where many of those children are, and that is not good enough. The whole tone has changed, and I hope that the Government will still want to stop the small boats, while also being much more pro-children.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Second sitting)

Jo White Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Pete Wishart]

Q That is not what I said. I was just asking for your response to the people who arrive on our shores, and whether you feel empathy, compassion and concern about them.

Alp Mehmet: We do, and even in my day as an immigration officer 50 years ago, that was exactly what we did. Tony rose to run the show, but I would argue that we had far more leeway in the ’70s as very junior, humble individual immigration officers. We were properly trained, we were monitored, we did things entirely within the law and we dealt with people humanely. It does not mean that that will not happen because we are saying, “No, you shouldn’t jump into a dinghy and make your way over here.”

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Q From the moment the Rwanda deal was signed until the moment it was scrapped, 84,000 people arrived here on boats. How can you define that as a deterrent?

Alp Mehmet: Tony, you start, and then I will catch up with the question, because I did not quite hear.

Tony Smith: We may well say the same thing. The question was about the fact that the Rwanda plan did not deter anybody because we still had 84,000 people arrive. I think the reason for that was that it was never, in fact, implemented. The intelligence coming across from Calais was that the smugglers and migrants never believed that it was going to happen. Once it became clearer that the Safety of Rwanda Act had passed, and that it might well become a reality, there was intelligence to suggest that some people were thinking twice about getting into dinghies, and there was some displacement into Ireland as a result. Of course, we will never know now, because we never actually implemented it.

We had a change of Government, and the new Government made it very clear that they were going to abolish the Rwanda plan, so we are where we are, but I would have liked an opportunity to see what would happen if we had started at least some removals. We had flights ready to go. I would have liked to see the impact that starting some removals would have had on the incoming population. We will never know now, I am afraid. Clearly, we hardly removed anybody to Rwanda in the end—I accept that—but I would have liked us to at least try, to see if it had an impact.

Alp Mehmet: It was never going to be the solution. It was not going to be the way to stop those people jumping into boats and coming across, but it was going to help. There needed to be other changes. I appreciate that we are not going to resile from the European convention on human rights any time soon, but while it is there, it is very difficult to be certain that people will be dissuaded. Some will be, some would have been, and we know that some were already being deterred. It was a pity, I am afraid, that the Rwanda deal went.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

Q We have heard today about clauses 13(3) and 14(4) exempting NGOs from criminal charges for helping asylum seekers to cross the channel. What do you think of those?

Karl Williams: If we are talking about what deterrence we might need or what pull factors there are, having charities that in some circumstances are facilitating people crossing the channel is clearly an extra pull factor—probably a small one in the grand scheme of things, but it is there. I am thinking about organisations such as Care4Calais, which provide, for example, phone-charging services to migrants who are waiting in the sand dunes and the camps around the beaches where the crossings are made. They can recharge their phones; they are therefore in contact with the smuggling gangs. I think that there is a hole in the system that needs to be closed, and I do not think that this Bill does it.

Tony Smith: There are charities and charities. Some charities are not in any way involved in facilitation; it is a pure “care in the community” exercise or function in Calais. But I think other charities are a little bit more mischievous: they might be helping people with what to say when you are near the border, how to present your asylum claim, and how to get to a beach that might not be patrolled. I would like to see more work done on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo White]

Q Just over a week ago, the Government announced that there will be no automatic right to British citizenship for a person who comes here illegally by boat or lorry. Do you think that will act as a deterrent to people coming here?

Professor Brian Bell: It is probably not a very strong deterrent. To repeat myself, all the evidence is that when asylum claimants think of where to claim asylum they do not have detailed knowledge of the ins and outs of the procedures of different countries. They almost certainly do not know what might happen in five to 10 years, which is the length of residence that they would need to apply for citizenship, so I am not sure it will be a significant deterrent. However, it is important to recognise that citizenship is not a right; it should be viewed as a privilege that people earn. It is reasonable for the Government to take the view that citizenship should not be given to certain people. I do not think there is anything wrong with that—it seems a legitimate observation.

[Katie Lam]

Q Perhaps on a related note, you have talked about incentives and mentioned a couple of reasons why people do not come over from France. What is your sense of why people do? Can those incentives be disrupted?

Professor Brian Bell: You would not want to disrupt some of the incentives. For example, the unemployment rate is 7.8% in France and 4.4% in the UK. The gap is slightly larger for young people than for the population as a whole. I am sure the Government would not want to change that incentive, although the French probably would. If you have a buoyant economy relative to your neighbour, at least in the labour market, that is an incentive. There is an incentive in terms of things that you would not necessarily want to change. The English language is really important as a pull factor, and the fact that there are diasporas already in the country.

There tends to be some evidence that the UK has been somewhat more successful than France at integrating immigrants into society, particularly second-generation immigrants: there is some evidence that whereas employment rates are always very poor for first-generation immigrants relative to natives, that gap narrows quite a bit in the UK when you look at second-generation immigrants. That is less true in France, so people may think the opportunities are better here.

The area where the Government could take action—and they are with the Employment Rights Bill—is that we have lots of employment rights in this country, but do not bother enforcing any of them, because we do not spend money on HMRC minimum wage enforcement teams and the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority does not have enough money to employ people to do all the work it needs to do. If the Fair Work Agency can take over and actually be beefed up, then we can enforce labour standards a bit more and that may discourage people, because one of the attractions of coming to the UK is that our looser enforcement of rules in labour market makes it easier to employ people who are here irregularly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Forster]

Q If I may briefly follow up, I appreciate the Minister for Border Security and Asylum’s thoughts on safe routes. Ukraine has long been held up as a good example: we housed a lot of people safely and one Ukrainian person tried to cross the channel.

To be more specific, I have a follow-up on clause 18. We are creating a new criminal offence of endangering someone on a sea crossing—why is it an unauthorised sea crossing? Why is it not a blanket endangering of someone when crossing the sea? Should that offence not be wider or is it more like an aggravating factor?

Dame Angela Eagle: I will talk about the very detailed aspect of that during our line-by-line scrutiny.

There has been a certain behaviour that has begun to happen, which has been perceived on the crossings in the small boats and which this offence is designed to deal with. That is the various kinds of violent intimidation that goes on, such as putting women and children in the middle of boats that then collapse, so they are crushed and die in that way, or holding children over the edge of boats to prevent rescue.

Sometimes if there has been a fatality on a boat—and we have seen what has happened—we go to pick people up and return them to France. The French authorities also do that. There is then a battle not to be returned and violence is sometimes used to prevent people from accepting the rescue that is offered to them. So there are some very particular things that this endangerment clause and this new offence are seeking to deal with.

[Jo White]

Q Thank you, Ministers, for your evidence. In his evidence, Tony Smith, who retired 12 years ago, was very critical of the role of the Border Security Commander and defined him as a “co-ordinator”. Do you believe that the Border Security Commander’s powers need to be enhanced?

Dame Angela Eagle: Well, the Border Security Commander is very happy with the powers that he has—he has been appointed. Again, we will talk about this in some detail, but it is important that we get co-ordination across different areas of activity. I think you will have heard what the NCA witness said about how he wants somebody else to do the co-ordination while he does the basic work. Everybody is working together very well across the people who have to have regard. The Border Security Commander is bringing together a range of very important players in this area to strategise and co-ordinate, and he has not told me—I meet him regularly—that he needs any more powers.

[Pete Wishart]

Q I know that we do not have much time, but I have two quick points following the compelling evidence we have heard today. It has been a very good session. One of the things that came across powerfully was the view that this Bill will do very little to actually tackle the gangs; we heard consistently throughout the evidence that, “They’ll just adjust their business model; they’ve got a monopoly on the irregular migration trade, so they are obviously going to do what they can to maintain it.”

The other thing is that it will have very little impact on people making the decision to come to the United Kingdom. They are fleeing oppression, poverty and war, and they do not care about the laws of the United Kingdom—what Angela Eagle is doing in a migration Bill is not going to deter them from coming here. So what are we going to do to get on top of this issue? Should we not be thinking, as we go through this Bill process, about fresh, new ideas to tackle it?

Dame Angela Eagle: Well, we have just come out of a period of fresh new ideas and gimmicks—

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Fourth sitting)

Jo White Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Pete Wishart]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairing this afternoon, Mr Stuart. I welcome you to the Committee.

Clauses 13 to 18 are where we start to get into the serious business of the Bill, and where some of its most concerning and controversial aspects are revealed. Nowhere is that more certain than in clauses 13 and 14.

The Government tell us that their whole intention and focus is exclusively on smashing the gangs, disrupting their business and bringing to justice as many of the people associated with and involved in this vile trade as possible. In everything we do in the Committee and in the House, the community must ensure that the Government are supported in that ambition and intention. That is one thing that unites the whole House, and we wish the Government every success in disrupting the gangs, smashing their business operations and bringing them to justice.

As we look at clauses 13 and 14, the first thing we have to do is assess and judge whether they assist in that process. I think we have to come to the conclusion that they do not, and they could make the situation a lot worse. They will certainly make the conditions of those who seek to come to our shores—some of the most wretched people in the world—much harder and more intolerable.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member hold the view that an asylum seeker cannot be above the law when it comes to participating in smuggling gangs?

[Pete Wishart]

I do not think anyone would assert, contend or propose that. Everybody is subject to the laws. Clauses 13 and 14 are designed to create new ways to criminalise people. I have listened carefully to the Government’s rhetoric, and I believe the focus and ambit of these new laws is to smash the gangs and disrupt their business, but they will not do that. The only people who will be ensnared, entrapped and put on the wrong side of these laws are asylum seekers. I say candidly to the hon. Lady that we are creating new ways to further criminalise the most wretched people in the world, and that is a grotesque ambition for this Government.

I tried to find out from the senior law officers who gave evidence how many members of gangs would be apprehended and brought to justice as a result of these new clauses. The law officers could not tell me. I do not blame them for that; they probably did not know. I suspect it would be really difficult even to make some sort of guess about how many criminals would be brought to justice as a result.

I also asked what would be the ratio of ordinary asylum seekers to gang members—the ones who secure this vile trade—but the law officers could not tell me. However, I know and suspect, as I am sure they do, that nearly everybody who falls foul of the clauses will be an asylum seeker. I suspect they know—I do, and probably everybody else does—that very few gang members will be brought in front of any of our judiciary as a result of the provisions.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Fifth sitting)

Jo White Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I want to reinforce the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Dagenham and Rainham and for Clwyd East regarding amendment 17, tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton West. I firmly believe that the amendment actually serves to dilute the legislation.

The hon. Member does not consider the fact that many people are coerced into boats in the belief that they will be safe, because there will be lifejackets provided. However, many times those lifejackets do not meet EU or British standards, or children’s lifejackets are provided for every person on the boat—or, when people get on the boat, there are not enough lifejackets. The gangs who are using that to coerce people on to the boats should be prosecuted for that simple act.

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)]

It has been a while since the sitting began, and it is easy to overlook that I have not been up on my feet so far. We have had an interesting debate. The amendments before us range from, at one end, the Opposition, whose amendments seek to criminalise everyone who gets in a small boat and presumably cart them directly to prison, through to the other end of the argument, represented with his usual passion by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, who feels that, if someone is an asylum seeker, they should be exempt from being judged at all on the behaviour that happens on the boat.

I will deal with some of those points in turn, but I also want to compliment my colleagues who have made their own comments and some very important points in this debate. It is important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh said, that we are clear-eyed about what is happening in the channel. We can be romantic about it in many ways, as the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire often appear to be, or we can regard all those who come over as criminals and a threat, but the truth is somewhere in between.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East made a moving speech about the realities of what can happen in these circumstances; it is easy to forget, when we are sat in a nice warm Committee Room—although it is not always warm, facing as it does on to the river. Imagine ending up in the water in the channel, Mr Stuart; you can last only so long. You could easily have a heart attack in that cold water and not be resuscitated. Clearly, if you are a child, or vulnerable in any other way, then that is likely to happen—and it will happen to you first.

My hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw, for Clwyd East and for Dover and Deal made important points about the realities too. I will come on to what the Government are trying to do with this offence and why it is in the Bill, but I will deal with the amendments first. I hope I will be able to answer some of the questions that have been asked during this important debate—[Interruption.] I also hope that my voice is going to last out.

Amendment 15 focuses on the length of the sentence attached to clause 18 and seeks to increase the sentence from six to 14 years where an irregular entrant arrival has caused or created a risk of serious personal injury or death to others during a sea crossing to the UK. Clause 18 introduces a new criminal offence that is to be inserted into section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. The current sentence for the offence of arriving in breach of a deportation order under section 24(A1) of the Immigration Act is five years.

Because clause 18 will be inserted into section 24 of the Act, the intention of the clause is to ensure that, given the egregious and serious natures of the acts committed under the new offence, the maximum sentencing is increased, albeit remaining in line with the existing sentencing framework in section 24 of the Act. The issues about the length of sentence are all about keeping sentencing in that section of the Immigration Act coherent. Grabbing extra, lengthier sentences out of the air to insert them into the Act can create inconsistency and mess up the structures of sentencing involved in the Act, making it less coherent than it should be. The sentence of five years was reached after discussions with partners about all the sentences and offences in this particular area, and it rightly reflects that coherence.

An increased sentence of six years is considered to be appropriate for the endangerment offence. It furthers the deterrence aim of the policy, but is not so severe as to deter prosecutors from bringing a prosecution in the first instance. That is another area in which the rhetoric of even longer sentences deters prosecutors from bringing charges at all. We have seen that with the facilitation offences, where the introduction of a life sentence has led to fewer prosecutions being pursued; prosecutors think that for a sentence of that length, more obvious evidence has to be accrued, so they charge fewer people. An increased sentence can sometimes have a perverse effect on the system. We think that the sentence in the Bill is in keeping with the Immigration Act and is about right.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Sixth sitting)

Jo White Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

These clauses create invasive new search, seizure and retention powers, along with the powers to access, copy and use information contained within an electronic device. The new powers can be applied to any person who arrives irregularly and has not yet been granted permission to enter or remain in the UK. They allow an immigration or police officer to fully search a person, including a search of that person’s mouth. I expect that the Minister will tell us exactly whether that particular qualification is required for these new powers.

This is not the plot and setting of some future dystopian film: it will be the UK sea border in the course of the next few months. These things will not be done to hardened criminals wandering the streets of the United Kingdom or those associated with violent crime. They are to be done to some of the most abandoned and traumatised people in the world. With these clauses we are starting, measuredly, to go into police state territory. They are essentially a hybrid form of stop-and-search powers, without the due qualifications and reassurances. I do not know if profiling will be a part of this—I will be interested in the Minister’s response—but it seems like only one profile will be included in all that, which is that of every asylum seeker. They may all be subject to these new powers.

For these powers to be exercised, there need only be reasonable grounds and suspicion that a relevant article appears to store some electronic information that relates or may relate to the future or past commission of a facilitation offence. That seems excessively broad. Practically any person who arrives irregularly to the UK may be subject to these powers. Any information received from these searches would be used for preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting facilitation offences. The property can be retained for as long as considered necessary to assess, examine or copy information for use in proceedings for an offence, before being returned or disposed of.

I trying to think why the Government want these clauses. I know they are going to tell us it is all about helping to disrupt organised crime and making sure they can find particular and specific information on electronic devices, but I think a lot of it has to do with the 2022 High Court ruling decreeing that the Home Office’s secret policy of blanket searching, seizing and returning mobile phones from individuals arriving by small boats was unlawful.

Just like the Tories before them, if any particular law that defends and protects people is seen or deemed to be a little bit unnecessary, the Government will just bring in a new one to override it completely, forgetting anything to do with the consequences and implications for people. These new offences clearly compromise a person’s right to a private and family life. Given the confidential, legally privileged, sensitive, private and personal nature of the messages, photographs, information, correspondence and data that may be on such mobile devices, we hold that that could only ever be the case. To be fair, the Government respect that and acknowledge it as fact, and the European convention on human rights memorandum suggests that the new powers could be distinguished and that phones will not be seized on a blanket basis when these powers come into force—well, thank goodness for that.

The memorandum says:

“The Home Office will issue non-statutory guidance about the use of the powers and training which will be required for authorised officers exercising those powers.”

We will have to see that happen pretty quickly, because we have no idea how any of these powers will be exercised. Again, I am entirely happy to take the Minister at her word on how the new law will be exercised as we go forward. However, there is no such guidance for parliamentary scrutiny during the passage of the Bill, so it remains entirely unclear how the Home Office proposes to use these wide and invasive new powers.

I am distinctly uncomfortable with the new powers, and I am disconcerted about how they may be applied and used. A number of agencies have serious misgivings about the type of individuals who will be subject to these new powers. The Minister has to explain just a little more how these powers will be used and what protections will be put in place, particularly for some of the most traumatised people whom we will be ever deal with in this country.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I very much welcome this element of the Bill on electronic devices. While clause 22 will give officers powers to seize digital devices that are believed to be used for the purpose of people smuggling, clause 23 gives suitably trained and accredited criminal investigators the powers to access the information on mobile devices, phones and laptops that will build the evidence base, history, connections and understanding of the routes of the criminal gangs.

Seizing and extracting data from mobile devices is a powerful tool already used by our security services. There are already established Home Office guidelines on this, and these clauses extend those powers and will help enable intelligence-led profiling of irregular arrivals. That key change will lead to greater opportunities to disrupt the trade of these awful gangs.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

I want to make just a couple of points on the seizure of phones. We have to be incredibly realistic about the threat that the country faces and how these things are organised. We have seen people-smuggling networks and trafficking networks developing in complexity and scale. It does not start in France; it goes all the way through European countries—our allies—and then through countries that are very difficult for us to engage with, including some countries that are at war and some that are hostile states.

The evidence from the National Crime Agency is very clear that the networks are organised by phone, and that that is the primary means by which these criminals orchestrate them. We know that they are evolving, so it is really important that we give officials the power to seize those phones not only to understand where these smuggling networks are coming from, which is the only way to intercede and save people in unsafe vessels, but to disrupt those networks later.

We heard a whole set of arguments earlier about the insufficiency of deterrents in stopping sea crossings. Professor Walsh from the Migration Observatory was really clear that the demand is inelastic. No matter how many deterrents we introduce, there will still be some demand rising to meet them. That is why disruption is so important, which we can only happen if we have the ability to seize those phones. There is a really important distinction between targeting the demand and targeting the supply of the ability to cross the channel.

On the point about whether the powers are applied on a blanket basis, they are not. The Home Office is clear that there will be statutory guidance. The people who seize these phones will be subject to the same rules that are already in place on the handling of material seized from any individual, and they need those powers. The point about family life and private life is absolutely fair, and it applies whenever someone’s phone is stolen, which is a wider debate that we have in society. The truth is, there is no capacity to only seize part of someone’s phone. We cannot seize only some data and not detect, for example, private text messages or family photographs. It is proper that the Home Office officials who seize such data are subject to the rules that we have in this country about protecting the data and returning it when it is decided that it is not required, but we cannot separate out different types of data, and we would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater if we did not allow the powers to seize it.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Seventh sitting)

Jo White Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers]

The principle at stake is that if someone arrives in this country illegally, they will be removed. We were not processing people who had arrived illegally and were meant to be removed, but we were returning more of them before the election than we are now. However, I will get through my comments, and there will be plenty of time then for debate—we have a full morning ahead of us.

Does the Minister think that allowing 96% of illegal migrants who arrive by small boat to stay in the UK is a deterrent? At the moment, people know that if they come here on a small boat, they are 96% likely to be allowed to stay. That is a strong pull factor. The only way to remove that pull factor is to reinstate a strong deterrent. People need to know that if they arrive here on a small boat, they will not be able to stay. Can the Minister explain how she will increase the number of removals without a third country to which migrants can be sent? If it is not Rwanda, where will they go? Will it be Redcar? Will it be Romford? Will it be Richmond? Where will these people who cannot be removed to a safe country go?

As Alp Mehmet said,

“repealing the Rwanda Act will encourage illegal immigration… 240,000 people were declared to have entered”

the EU “illegally last year” and will likely end up coming to the UK. The Government have confirmed with this Bill and the repeal of the Safety of Rwanda Act that there is no deterrence, because once people arrive here, the likelihood is that they will be able to stay. Mehmet also echoed the comments from the National Crime Agency, saying,

“the only deterrent is to restrict arrivals, and to contain and remove quickly. That will send the right message.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 39-40, Q43.]

As he pointed out, there is not “anything in the Bill” that would suggest that people will be removed quickly. Why has a removals agreement not been included in the Bill? The EU is now looking at offshore processing and deportation centres. There is also a growing consensus in the EU that the 1951 refugee convention is not fit for purpose. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of these changes on the UK? Why have the Government scrapped the Rwanda plan, leaving the UK as an outlier? We wish to oppose the repeal of the Act by way of a Division.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity to examine the failed Rwanda scheme. The Israeli scheme, which was set up more than a decade ago, provides stark evidence that the previous Government should have considered before recycling an idea that has cost taxpayers £700 million. In Israel, asylum seekers were given a stark choice: be sent home, go to a migrant detention facility or take $3,500 on a one-way flight to Rwanda. One such asylum seeker quickly found that he was not welcome on arrival. No sooner had he landed in Kigali than he was told he had to leave again for Uganda, and for a fee. He said that he quickly left for Greece on a small boat and then travelled over land to Switzerland, where he is now settled. Another used a $5,000 payment that he received to catch a flight to Amsterdam, where he then claimed asylum status.

The previous Conservative Government entered into the agreement with Rwanda with full knowledge of the previous failings there and offered individuals a personal payment of £3,000 to resettle their lives. Figures have been bandied about on how many asylum seekers Rwanda was willing to take, with the previous Government saying 1,000, and Rwanda saying between 100 and 200. It is not clear who was right, but a question that has often been repeated to me is: how can that be regarded as a deterrent? Indeed, our witnesses from the refugee support organisations made the point that people will continue to come and try their luck, and 84,000 took that risk. I welcome the fact that we have our common sense back and we are repealing the Act, but I despair at the waste of taxpayers’ money on pursuing a fantasy that had already failed elsewhere.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

Good morning to you, Mr Stuart, for week two of our fascinating journey into the depths of the Bill. There will be absolutely no argument from me about this one, and I wholeheartedly agree that the Bill must go through. When we look back at the whole sorry Rwanda debacle, we will wonder how on earth such a crackpot scheme was not only conceived, but actually constructed and delivered. A few words will be forever on the gravestone of the last Conservative Government: “stop the boats” and “Rwanda”. It was the first time, in my experience, that an Act decreed a new reality. Through sheer willpower alone, the Conservatives declared that Rwanda was a safe place, and in true Orwellian style, they even called the legislation the Safety of Rwanda Act. It was the most blatant political attempt ever to try to convince us that black was white.

Rwanda is so safe that it is currently accused of supporting the M23 militia, which is claimed to be recruiting child soldiers and carrying out killings and rapes of civilians in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Saying all that, Rwanda played an utter blinder. It milked this for all it was worth. It saw these mugs coming. So far, Rwanda has made £240 million—money that will not have to be paid back. The Bill was described by the Law Society as “defective” and “constitutionally improper”, and it was declared unlawful in the Supreme Court. All those rebukes did nothing for the Conservatives other than to encourage them to ensure that the idea became a reality.

We just have to look at the sheer waste and the sheer stupidity that was the very essence of the Rwanda policy. The headline was that it cost taxpayers £750 million and failed to deport a single asylum seeker against their will. There was £270 million to support economic development in Rwanda, £95 million for detention and reception centres and £280 million for other fixed costs. Fifty million pounds was spent preparing for flights that never took off.

Then there is the farce of the Kigali four—the four volunteers sent to Rwanda, who were the only people who actually made it through the whole scheme. Tortoise did us a favour by unearthing the script that was used when the Home Office tried to persuade people to take up a “generous one-time offer” of a relocation package to Rwanda. One source said that demonstrated an

“insane level of resource that went into just proving the concept”.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Ninth sitting)

Jo White Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain.

I disagree with the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. Given what we have seen play out in the last few weeks, I welcome the measures outlined in the new clause, which answers some of the issues highlighted by new clause 44, which was tabled by the Opposition.

I draw attention to the amendment of section 3(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1971, which would put in a place a robust suite of measures to monitor and manage those coming into our country. Let us not forget that the new clause focuses on those who are coming here illegally and who are known to have been involved in criminality. The use of curfews, as well as inclusion and exclusion zones, with the possibility of extending conditions where the Secretary of State sees fit, will be a marked improvement on the incoherent approach currently in use. As we have debated in previous sittings, the provisions in the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 are not fit for purpose.

I believe that new clause 30, with greater intelligence and the duties of co-operation outlined in clause 5 relating to the role of the Border Security Commander, will create a foundation for better communication and data sharing between our intelligence agencies and their international counterparts. I feel that it will greatly improve on the current situation, in which, in the past few weeks, criminals and those with links to terrorist organisations have entered the country with limited restriction under the flawed legislation of the previous Government.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham and I welcome the new clause. British citizens must be safe, and they need a Government who act to protect them. I believe that the new clause will give them reassurance that we have the ability to impose tight controls and monitoring of an individual if it is deemed necessary by the authorities. We must have legislation that puts the security of our country at the top of the agenda, and the new clause gives the police the powers to impose electronic monitoring, curfews and movement bans on people who are perceived to be a threat when ECHR obligations are protecting them.

[Tom Hayes]

I want to comment briefly on the speech by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. I understand the importance of being sensitive to possible infringements and abuses of international law; indeed, in recent years, we have seen states around the world traducing it. However, I gently say to him—I hope it has not missed his attention—that the Prime Minister is a lawyer and, as a consequence of that background, he is deeply wedded to the law. In most of his speeches and statements, he refers consistently to the importance of the UK being a leader on the world stage by respecting international law.

I say that because the Committee has just repealed the Safety of Rwanda Act, which was deemed unlawful by the courts. We have a Prime Minister who deeply respects international law; around the world, we have states and actors who traduce it. Having a Prime Minister and a country that are so committed to it at this point in history is really important. I gently say to the hon. Member that it is important that we are sensitive to possible infringements of international law, but we ought not to overplay the possibility of it happening here in our country, when all the evidence from the last eight months should give us confidence and hope.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Jo White Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers]

We know that significantly more people are arriving in the country. In fact, since the election, the number arriving illegally is up 29%, as is the number of people staying in hotels. The Government are actually removing fewer people than arrive by small boat now. The more people arrive, the more the backlogs will become an issue. Transparency in these tribunals is essential.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I am really trying to get my head around the new clause. Why would decision making in public be different from decision making in private?

[Matt Vickers]

Public trust in these decisions is completely and utterly broken. The answer to that is not to allow a good chunk of them to go unseen by the public. The public deserve to see and the people making the decisions deserve to be held to account. We need to ensure that the law is fit for purpose. We need to see the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the ECHR. That needs to be there for all to see. Public accountability and transparency are a good thing. The taxpayers out there, who fund all this, have a right to know what is going on, at any level, in the tribunals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

It is a pleasure to once again to serve under you as Chair, Dr Murrison. When I look at the Tory amendments in their totality, they are quite frankly an absolute and utter disgrace. It is as if the Tories have learnt absolutely nothing from the Rwanda debacle and the Illegal Migration Act 2023. Some of the amendments that we will be debating are simply heinous, lacking in any reasonable standard of compassion and empathy. What a country they would create: one devoid of human rights and international protections, where people are simply othered and deprived of any rights whatsoever. Some of the most desperate and wretched people in the world would be denied and booted out.

I used to say that the Tories would never beat Reform in the race to the bottom, but looking at the collection of amendments that we are debating today, they are going to give it their best shot. It is just possible that they will out-Reform Reform colleagues in the House of Commons. The amendments are not only terrifying but ludicrously unworkable—blatant political grandstanding, designed to appeal to the basest of instincts. We have the grim task of having to debate them one by one; I just hope that the Committee will reject them totally out of hand.

New clause 25 was raised in a blaze of publicity at the end of the self-denying ordinance from the Leader of the Opposition when she announced her new immigration policy, which I understand has been changed and finessed over the course of the past few weeks, but is still as grotesque underneath as it started. The Conservatives do not believe that British citizenship should be a privilege; they believe that British citizenship should be virtually unobtainable, and that the strongest possible tests must be applied before anybody is ever going to get the opportunity to call themselves a British citizen. That is totally and utterly self-defeating.

The provision will apply to work-based visa holders, skilled workers and global talent, who can currently apply for ILR after five years. Extending that period to 10 years could deter highly-skilled workers and investors from coming to stay in the UK. It may lead to workforce instability, particularly in sectors reliant on international talent. It would also disadvantage certain migrants and people who have lived legally in the UK for 10 years but do not hold one of the listed visas. This is an unworkable, crazy proposal that can only be self-defeating and have a massive impact on our economy. It would create a massive disincentive to the very people we need to come into the UK to fill some of our skills gaps. I hope the provision is roundly rejected.

[Jo White]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. We should never be surprised by the audacity of the Conservative party, which now exists in a state of amnesia following the previous 14 years of failure, collapse and chaos. Let me take a moment to remind Opposition Members of their failed promises.

A good place to start is the general election campaign of 2010, when David Cameron said that his Government would reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. At that point, net migration stood at 252,000. In 2011, he went further, saying that his target would be achieved by the 2015 general election—“No ifs. No buts.” But when the ballot boxes were opened in that election, numbers had risen to 379,000. Then along came Theresa May. At the snap 2017 general election, net migration stood at 270,000, and she had an election pledge to get net migration down to the tens of thousands, but by 2019 the number had risen to 275,000.